Lord Bilston

Dennis Turner, Esquire, having been created Baron Bilston, of Bilston in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Evans of Parkside and the Lord Grocott.

Lord Moonie

Lewis George Moonie, Esquire, having been created Baron Moonie, of Bennochy in Fife, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Goudie and the Lord Elder, and made the solemn Affirmation.

A-levels and GCSEs

Baroness Platt of Writtle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there has been grade inflation in A-levels and GCSEs in recent years.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we do not believe so. The 1995 study by Ofsted and the curriculum authority on examination standards over time concluded that the overall standards required of public examinations remained broadly the same between 1975 and 1995.
	Since 1997, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's reviews of individual subject requirements have found no evidence of a reduction in standards at either GCSE or A-level.

Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I do not entirely share the Minister's confidence, although I thank him very much for his Answer. Do the Government have plans to encourage the development of the international baccalaureate or to enable universities more accurately to choose students by allowing optional, more challenging papers so as to reduce the number of drop-outs, which is such a tragedy for the student and a waste of public money?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, state schools as well as private schools are free to adopt the international baccalaureate and an increasing number of schools in the state system—about 50—are currently doing so. It is also open to universities to have tests of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness and some do.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, is it possible that the gap between some subjects at GCSE and A-level is so great—I have in mind modern foreign languages, mathematics and double general science—such that the take-up of those subjects at A-level is discouraged? May it be that some schools are inclined to encourage the less than first-rate students to take subjects which they consider will more easily improve their position in the league tables?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, since the current AS and A-level system was introduced three years ago, the number of students taking science and modern foreign language courses has remained roughly constant. However, the noble Lord makes a good point in respect of mathematics, where the number has reduced by about 25 per cent. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has advised us that there was too great a content in the AS mathematics course to be mastered in the first year of study. Revised criteria were introduced last September with the core content being distributed over four AS units rather than three. We are confident that this will rectify matters. I also point out that the number studying mathematics in universities continues to rise.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what proposals there are to introduce an extra grade at A-level, an A* grade? Does he agree that the very introduction of such a grade implies some inflation of grades?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we have no proposals to introduce such a grade. However, we have said in the 14–19 Education and Skills White Paper, published earlier this year, that from 2007 we shall make available to universities, through UCAS, the individual module marks that comprise AS and A2. That will give universities more information on which to base their offers.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Church of England's commitment to education for the whole child? Will he join me, with the Church of England, in congratulating the teaching profession on its contribution to the raising of standards?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am well aware of the contribution made by the Church of England. I readily pay tribute to it and to the work of our teachers. Since the current inspection regime was established 13 years ago, the proportion of secondary schools where poor teaching is observed has halved. The proportion where good teaching for GCSEs is observed has risen from 43 per cent to 74 per cent. That is a very great tribute to the work of our teachers. I am sure that the whole House wishes to pay tribute to the teaching profession.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, at GCSE, around 50 per cent of pupils achieve A to C grades, but in the core and required subject of maths, English and science, the figure is closer to 33 per cent. Will the Minister comment on the significance of that discrepancy in performance and on what it suggests about the selection of subjects by pupils, their schools and their parents to achieve better grade profiles?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, it tends to suggest that the more able students are being attracted to those subjects, as the noble Baroness would expect me to say. However, of course, the very fact that the A-grade proportion in those subjects is so much higher than in many other subjects shows that the examination system is working well in ensuring that grades are awarded according to achievement in those subjects.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that since 2000 so much of the focus has been on targets and exams and not on education, that education has become so prescriptive and geared to passing exams and modules, and that pupils are not learning history, for example, but they are learning to pass history exams?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, one hopes that in passing history exams, students also learn a good deal of history in the process.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in 1993 the Hamlyn Foundation carried out an inquiry into education in the UK—I had the privilege of chairing the inquiry—which criticised A-levels as being narrow, a criticism recently echoed by the Prime Minister? It also recommended an over-arching diploma, which would include GCSEs and A-levels, which would give additional breadth and an opportunity to pupils to study not only vocational but a combination of vocational and academic qualifications. Is the Minister totally opposed to the recent proposals of the former chief inspector of schools, and supported by a large number of schools, recommending very firmly such a diploma?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are certainly not totally opposed to the proposals by Sir Mike Tomlinson, to which the noble Lord referred. Indeed, we are implementing a high proportion of the recommendations in his report, including the development of specialised diplomas beyond the age of 14 in more vocational subjects to meet precisely the demands to which the noble Lord referred.
	Since the noble Lord's very distinguished report, in which he and the noble Lord, Lord Moser, played such an important part, in 1993, we have introduced vocational GCSEs and vocational A-levels. We have also introduced the new AS system, which has had many criticisms made of it, particularly in respect of the weight of the examination system which it brought in its train, but it has had the effect of broadening the number of subjects for candidates beyond the age of 16.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Lord away of industry's extreme dissatisfaction with the quality of examinees who come into its care? Is he in particular aware of a report by the CBI last year on 500 companies, 37 per cent of which expressed dissatisfaction with the standards of numeracy and literacy of 16 year-olds that they had employed? What is he really going to do to restore confidence in the examination system?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we engaged in extensive discussions with the CBI in preparing our White Paper 14–19 Education and Skills. A significant number of the proposals in that paper relate to the strengthening of literacy and numeracy in secondary schools, including a reform of, for example, the school performance tables, so that in future they will contain the proportion of pupils achieving five good GCSEs, including English and Maths, which was a particular reform asked for by the CBI that we believe will strengthen the teaching of those subjects in secondary schools.

NHS: Suspensions

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they will take to ensure that National Health Service doctors suspended by their hospital trusts have their cases dealt with justly and speedily.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we took steps in 2001 to improve the performance of the NHS in dealing with suspensions by establishing the National Clinical Assessment Service, which is now part of the National Patients Safety Agency. In the final quarter of 2004 the number of doctors suspended for more than six months at any one time has been reduced to 19. A new disciplinary framework agreed with the medical and dental professions in February this year is mandatory across NHS trusts and will speed up local procedures for handling disciplinary cases.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that NCAS, which was set up, as he rightly said, to try and deal with the problem, has proved a great disappointment to the medical profession because it is so biased against doctors? Does he consider it fair that hearings are in secret, that the doctor has no right of appeal and no right for a legal representative and that the trusts are in fact prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman? Why is it that in this country we treat those who commit the worst crimes in the criminal calendar with more fairness and humanity than we do suspended hospital doctors?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the record of NCAS, which was introduced by this Government to deal with the problems of suspension which were left behind by a previous government, includes an achievement: that 85 per cent of the cases it has dealt with have not resulted in suspensions. That must be good news for many of the senior doctors involved. The new procedures which have been agreed with the medical profession are now mandatory across NHS trusts, conform with all good practice and fairness, and doctors and dentists involved in those procedures have a right of appeal to employment tribunals.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister recall the recent publicity concerning a doctor, who, lacking in specialist qualifications, nevertheless over a long period wrongly diagnosed and wrongly treated children for epilepsy, with disastrous results? What has happened to that doctor?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of this case and although I am not at liberty to go into the details of it, I will write to the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, given that there are often strong personality disputes within hospitals and between hospital staff and management, and that some doctors, quite properly, seek to rock the boat or identify shortcomings in clinical practice, is my noble friend satisfied that there are sufficient arrangements for an independent presence in the process to ensure that the public interest is secured as well as the interests of doctors and the NHS trusts concerned?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the new procedures have been agreed with the medical and dental professions and are now mandatory across NHS trusts. They provide for a more rigorous timetabling system for dealing with matters. That process entails the appointment of a non-executive board member to oversee any exclusion and subsequent action.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my experience of suspended hospital consultants is much earlier? There were cases where people had gardening leave for 11 or more years because it was impossible to do anything under the old consultant contract. Does he think that the situation has now gone too far the other way? My noble friend tells me that most of those people are cleared at hearings. In such cases is there any equivalent form of compensation for those who have lost their good name? How is it dealt with?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the dim, dark days to which the noble Baroness alludes follow the 1990 guidance, which history students will recall was not issued under this Government. This Government have negotiated arrangements with the medical profession to improve that, to timetable the processes for which those cases are heard and to ensure fairness to doctors and patients. As I said earlier, at the end of 2004 the number of doctors suspended for six months or more had dropped to an all-time low of 19.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, NHS trusts are supposed to have in place a no-blame reporting system for errors but apparently it is not yet fully embedded. Does the Minister agree that, if fully embedded, that system would help to deal with some cases of unfair victimisation and suspension of doctors and, more importantly, with some of the errors that emerge in medical practice? How far is it from being fully embedded in the NHS?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's last question but I shall write to her. She is right: this is a beneficial development that will be helpful. I re-emphasise that the new procedures involve rigorous timetabling so that people are not left in suspension, or on gardening leave, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said. We are working hard to ensure that doctors, in agreement with the medical profession, are dealt with fairly under those proceedings.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, there seems to be more to the issue than, as the Minister says, the patient and the doctor: there is also the public interest. The House has indicated considerable unease because, aside from the issue, the public is denied the doctor concerned, rightly or wrongly, for a period, and there may well be consequences. Should the matter not be re-examined with a view to ensuring that there is a clear sign that the public is involved and satisfied with the outcome of those inquiries?

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That is why we have engaged in a process of speeding up the procedures so that doctors are dealt with fairly and patients are not denied access to doctors unnecessarily.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the medical defence bodies say that 100 doctors are currently suspended, at a cost of £25 million a year? I have just been on the telephone to a pathologist who has been suspended for nearly five years. The case has been settled but the conditions were that he took early retirement and that a gagging clause was included.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we should be pleased that the new procedure has been agreed with the medical and dental profession so that such cases as happened in the past are not repeated.

Prime Minister's Delivery Unit

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the functions of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the function of the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit is to ensure delivery of the Prime Minister's top public service priorities. They include access to the National Health Service; educational standards; crime and criminal justice; and asylum and migration. The Prime Minister's Delivery Unit works closely with relevant departments to assess the prospects for delivery and to tackle barriers in ways that lead to a sustained improvement in the likelihood of delivery.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, am I right to wonder whether some of the things that the Government make and do do not present quite a problem, when it comes to packaging and delivering them in an acceptable form? I would also be interested to know what a Mr Adrian Masters does. He is listed as the chief problem solver. That suggests that he must be an extremely busy man. It also causes me to wonder whether it would not be a good idea, from the Government's point of view, for the chief problem solver and the Prime Minister to change places for a while.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure whether there was a supplementary question there. I do not know Adrian Masters, but I have a feeling that he probably has to solve fewer problems than he had to in the past.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, speaking as the son of an obstetrician who always looked to delivery units to produce healthy babies, I should be grateful if the Government would indicate more systematically than they do the performance indicators that they apply to the unit. What are the goals, and when are they being achieved?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the unit is responsible for working with departments to ensure that we deliver on our main public service priority areas. There are several targets that are established for and in conjunction with departments. My understanding is that we are achieving a high level of success in meeting those targets. We are delivering on the Government's programme.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, how many people are employed in the unit to fulfil the tasks that the Minister has identified?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are 40 members of the Delivery Unit.

Lord Renton: My Lords, although I was first elected to Parliament 60 years ago today—

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Renton: I would be grateful if my ignorance could be dealt with. How many Prime Ministers have had a delivery unit? Has every Prime Minister had the same delivery unit?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord on his 60 years in Parliament. It is a wonderful record, and, no doubt, he has delivered many fine speeches in that time. It is pertinent that he should have asked the question.
	I know that our Government has had the Delivery Unit since June 2001. I know that previous governments have relied on Civil Service help in different forms for research, development and background support to Prime Ministers from time to time. We decided to have the Delivery Unit because we wanted to ensure that we delivered on our programme and our promises.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, did I mishear the Minister, when he said that one of the problems being dealt with by the unit was the question of education? I have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, say how perfect everything is. What is the problem in education that this gentleman is dealing with?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is sharp on the point. We have an extremely good record in education, and, obviously, the noble Lord has clearly heard my noble friend Lord Adonis talk in glowing terms about it. Nevertheless, the Government believe that, when we improve things, we should seek to go on improving things. That is why our Government are so widely respected.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I read with interest that the unit will have as its priorities this year "ruthless prioritisation" and all sorts of other things—they are so wonderful that I have lost them—including enhancing the Delivery Unit's focus. I then read that it costs more than £3 million a year to run the unit. Who is guarding this guard? Is the Minister happy with the performance of the unit?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, not only am I happy with the performance of the unit, but Ministers and Secretaries of State across Government are also very happy. It provides valuable support and background encouragement. At the last count, it has enabled us to achieve, I think, more than 70 per cent of our targets that were established.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in that case, what is the House of Commons doing? I thought that it was there to deliver; and, we, too, of course.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the House of Commons plays an invaluable role in holding the Government to account, as does your Lordships' House.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why there are significant differences in the numbers of anti-social behaviour orders issued in each police force area.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we acknowledge that there are differences in the numbers of anti-social behaviour orders issued in each criminal justice area coterminous with police force areas. That is because it is up to local agencies to decide on the most appropriate intervention to tackle anti-social behaviour in their area based on their knowledge of what works best locally. The key issue is whether anti-social behaviour is being reduced on the ground, not which measure is used to achieve it. It is not a numbers game.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which was elegant and contained considerable sense. But does she not agree that the numbers are so different that the time has come for a serious investigation and review of ASBOs, which have a very useful role to play in appropriate places and circumstances with appropriate people, in particular in relation to children?
	Did the Minister see the widespread publicity last week about a 14 year-old lad in Colne, the town in which I live, who was given an ASBO condition that he could not wear his "hoodie" over his head except when it was raining? Is the Minister aware that this young man had already been arrested six times before the hoodie business for breaching his ASBO? In those circumstances, surely there are better ways in which the local community can be protected and young people and children can be helped through their difficulties.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the discrepancy is difficult to evaluate. As noble Lords will know, there are a whole series of different types of orders that may be used as opposed to anti-social behaviour orders. We are looking at those issues. Noble Lords will know that in 2002 we published a research paper, entitled, A Review of Anti-social Behaviour Orders. Now that many more orders have been made, it may be appropriate to carry out further research into the way in which anti-social behaviour orders are being made.
	As regards the case of the 14 year-old to which the noble Lord referred, I do not know the particular facts. But it is a matter for the court to determine the most appropriate condition. I, of course, cannot say why the court decided that wearing a hoodie, save in the rain, was not a proper thing for this young man to do.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, in the review, does the Minister have the spread of ethnic background and gender of the young people who are being given ASBOs? If that information is put together with demographic information, it may tell us whether we are getting a proper response from local police or whether other factors are involved. As the Minister will know, I have never been a friend of ASBOs.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly acknowledge the noble Baroness's antipathy to ASBOs, but I have to say that their utility has been demonstrated pretty comprehensively. The research will look at the factors which will enable us better to analyse whether anti-social behaviour orders are being appropriately used and to what extent. The points that the noble Baroness made are interesting. I am sure that those issues will be borne in mind when we consider the ambit of the research.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the view of my right honourable friend Mr David Davis that ASBOs could become a civil route to a criminal record? I ask that with particular reference to the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Will she consider alternative punishments for the breach of ASBOs such as reparation orders for parents or taking away a driving licence?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, regrettably, individuals currently being made subject to anti-social behaviour orders are quite often already known to the police. A large percentage of ASBOs are attached to a sentence imposed on a young offender and for many it is seen as an alternative or a last attempt before such offenders go to prison. How we deal with breaches is a huge issue and noble Lords will know that reprimands, issues of restorative justice and how we can deal with ISOs which support those subject to ASBOs are alternatives we are now looking forward to and are being used.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is very considerable concern about the use of ASBOs directed at women convicted of offences associated with the sex industry? In many cases the issuing of ASBOs to convicted prostitutes stigmatises them and makes it difficult for them to achieve the other aspect of government policy, that of exiting the industry altogether. In Leeds, for example, I understand that only two weeks ago leaflets were being circulated around a housing estate showing a portrait of a particular woman who had been subjected to an ASBO in this way. It has caused enormous difficulties to her, her family and to everyone else concerned.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I acknowledge the anxiety that has been expressed by the noble Lord in that regard. He will know that the recent consultation paper, Paying the Price, deals with issues relating to women involved in prostitution. I know that anti-social behaviour orders have been made against some prostitutes, particularly in those areas where prostitution has become a real difficulty for local residents. We will continue to look at these issues. However, it is a matter for the courts to decide whether, in any given appropriate case, an anti-social behaviour order is the right response.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is there in place a proper system of monitoring ASBOs to ensure that they are applied consistently? Could not such a system determine whether these orders adversely affect certain groups within our communities? Lastly, there were reports at the weekend about where responsibility for ASBOs rests. Does it still rest with the Home Secretary or has it now moved to the Prime Minister in Downing Street?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is most certainly still the Home Secretary and enjoys the respect and, indeed, the affection of all those who know him. So far as I am aware, he is firmly in situ. On the adverse effects of ASBOs, noble Lords will know that the legislation is carefully targeted and clear. The rules that have to be applied are also clear, and the guidance we have issued means that we are able to achieve a greater level of consistency. Noble Lords will also know that in due course the Sentencing Guidelines Council will be able to look at these issues. So when looking at the whole panoply of the conditions we have carefully put in place, your Lordships should be reassured that the application of ASBOs is robust, is directed at the appropriate people, and is effective.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As I do so, I feel obliged to offer some insight into the whys and wherefores as background. For much of that, I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, who piloted the self-same Bill through your Lordships' House in 2002. I introduced precisely the same Bill in December 2004. When he and I did that, we earned what I hope will be my fate today; support from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches and no opposition from the Government, which is par for the course for a private Bill. Sadly, yet again, time was against me on the previous occasion; perhaps the third time I may be lucky.
	If I have any interest to declare it could be that, as my home town is Newcastle upon Tyne, I have a clear memory of the influence of the place of freemen in such a great city as Newcastle. One of the jewels in its crown is the Town Moor, a place with fond memories for me. It is where the annual fair, known as "The Hoppings" and associated with the running of the Pitman's Derby on the Gosforth racecourse took place, being run this year but 10 days ago. It is where a new home for the Magpies—Newcastle United—was mooted recently. The power and influence of the freemen of Newcastle was and is such that they could and did withstand the power of that famous football team.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, set out the arguments cogently and, in my opinion, persuasively. I am deeply indebted to him for allowing me to use his arguments today. He wishes the Bill well.
	The Bill will eliminate a gender anomaly, which I shall present under the following five headings. First, what are borough freedoms? Secondly, what is their legal status? Thirdly, what is the anomaly that the Bill seeks to correct? Fourthly, why should that be done by Parliament rather than in some other way? Fifthly, what will be the effect of the Bill?
	First, I turn to the borough freedoms. One has to go back to medieval times to understand this ancient institution. It is probably the oldest legal institution that exists in the United Kingdom today. The control of local trade and local government was in the hands of a body of freemen, so called because they were free of the restrictions on trade and other activities that applied to persons outside the liberties.
	Parliamentary suffrage was also limited to freemen, who were the burghers of the boroughs. Those privileges became a source of abuse and were sharply restricted by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and by the opening up of the parliamentary suffrage that was going on at the same time.
	It would have been possible at any time during the past 180 years for Parliament simply to abolish the freedoms, but it never chose to do so. Instead, it recognised and preserved their status by a succession of Acts of Parliament, beginning with the 1835 Act and continuing until the Local Government Act 1972.
	By the present day, the tangible benefits of the membership of a freedom have been reduced, so much so that in some boroughs they are non-existent. I need not take up time by giving illustrations of the modest benefits which exist because all the freedoms are different and it would take a long time to describe them across the board.
	Nowadays, the reason that people still wish to become freemen is not personal gain but because it identifies the member with the local community in a way that is much more intimate, continuous and longstanding than the exercise of local government franchise or election to local councils. The freemen are not competitors of councillors and aldermen. The two systems exist in parallel and in harmony.
	Secondly, what is the legal status of the freedoms? They are creatures of ancient custom—very ancient indeed. As I said, they are probably the oldest legal institutions in this country. They are creatures of custom, not of statute. Although statute has recognised their existence, it has not created the freemen or provided the mechanism to bring them up to date by their own consent. Some ancient charters contained such mechanisms but, for reasons with which I shall not trouble the House as it would take some time to explain and would not be very illuminating, those powers have not survived the successive reforms of local government. So those ancient customs remain frozen in the state in which they were when they first came into existence hundreds of years ago.
	Thirdly, what is the wrong that the Bill seeks to remedy? The answer lies in the fact that the customs are frozen in their ancient forms. Since changes were made at the time of the great reform 160 years ago, persons can become freemen only by descent from a parent freeman. In a substantial proportion of boroughs, the descent can take place only in the male line. Daughters are thus barred, for no valid reason, from the benefits—largely intangible, but benefits none the less—of succeeding to this ancient status.
	Fourthly, assuming that this be wrong—and I hope that the House will assume it to be wrong—why take up the time of Parliament in putting it right? Are there no other ways in which the courts could provide a solution with the aid of the anti-discrimination provisions of the human rights legislation? Unfortunately, I am told that the answer seems to be no. I say "seems" because the legal status of these institutions is strange, and lost in the mists of history. However, legal research suggests that even through the courts the remedy is, at the very best, speculative and almost certainly non-existent. So it falls back on Parliament to put the matter right. That is why I propose this Second Reading.
	What is the effect of the Bill? It is primarily, as will appear from its wording, to insert a provision enabling the daughter of a freeman to be admitted as a freeman of a city or a town notwithstanding her gender. That will put right across the board, once and for all, the need for each borough freedom individually to embark on the costly and highly speculative task of trying to find some solution of a different nature.
	In Clause 1(2) of the Bill is a correction of the absurdity that a person can be a freeman only if born within the precincts of the borough. There is brief reference to the fact that the Act does not bear on the City of London, the freemen of which are governed by a completely different regime.
	The Bill has nothing to do with honorary freeman. When one reads in the newspapers that someone has been made a freeman of the borough, that is an entirely different matter, with which the Bill is not concerned. The fact that it is not a great matter does not prevent it being wrong. It is something which, in the absence of any other means, Parliament can fittingly put right.
	Finally, I plead in aid some correspondence I have received. Enclosed in a letter from a freeman of Newcastle was a copy of an article in the newspaper of the Guild of Freemen in Newcastle which states:
	"When, or should I say if, the Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill becomes Law, the daughters of Freemen throughout the land will have the same right to become Freemen themselves, as will their own sons and daughters. . . The Freemen of Newcastle upon Tyne Stewards' Committee are very keen to legally introduce Lady Freemen into our City, as is the Newcastle City Council".
	I am told that the national body of freemen of England and Wales also gives its support.
	This is a modest measure, which is in line with current thinking. The House can approve it, although it failed three years ago because it was introduced very late in the Session and fell last Session due to the date of the general election. However, our job today is to give this a fair wind. It will then be my responsibility to find someone in the other place to take it on. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)

Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, deserves a great deal of support for his persistence. Persistence is one of the most important qualities in getting anything through from a Back-Bench position—you have to keep on knocking away to make sure that people hear you and then that they pay some attention.
	I have spoken on the Bill once and I know that my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie did so on the last occasion it came before the House. Both of us, holders of hereditary titles through the male line, felt obliged to say that this is a good idea. In my case, I have an older sister; I talked about this to her when we were discussing nieces and nephews, and who was going to look after what and where. I said that I would have to support this, and she said, "You had better support it very loudly" for the simple reason that if I did not, she would peel me with a blunt knife at the next family gathering.
	When threatened by one's family, one should always give in. I congratulate the noble Lord on his taking on this issue and wish him well. The Bill can do no harm if it is passed. Who knows, it may do some good?

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, on this subject before. It was a pleasure to hear his story related once again. I am bound to say that I wish him third time lucky.
	People identify strongly with their community. In this modern era when everybody moves everywhere, it is still a joy to find families who have a very strong allegiance to their town of origin and who wish to maintain their particular association with it. When one goes to America, one notices how immensely fond are Americans of their origins in this country if they can prove them. So it is right that we too should be proud of our origins in our communities.
	Will the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, explain in a little more detail why London is excluded? I think that I have the reasons in my head, but it would be helpful if he could clarify that point.
	This is a small Bill. It was a pleasure to hear the noble Lord advocating the hereditary principle. The hereditary principle through the female line certainly is not a problem as far as I am concerned. We wish this Bill well and we hope that the noble Lord succeeds this time.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Graham has explained the purpose of his Bill with his usual flair and cogency. I say "usual" because, as he said, this is the third time that the Bill has been brought to the House. He knows well by now that the Government's position is neutral; we take no formal view for or against the Bill. But as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, my noble friend has shown admirable persistence. I would say that it is the persistence of an ex-Chief Whip who is well used to dealing with recalcitrant audiences. As the first woman Minister to have the privilege of debating the Bill, I congratulate him on his tenacity in taking the Bill forward again and on his sterling and relentless pursuit of female rights.
	As I was doing my own homework on the Bill I became quite absorbed in the history that the Bill represents. In this House, we are hardly intimidated by history, sometimes even making a swift diversion into medieval times. In previous debates, however, we seem to have taken a rather recent view, starting in only 1835 as far as I can see. But in medieval times, the term "freeman" was originally a definition of status in feudal society. It came to mean a man who possessed the full privileges and immunities of a city, borough or trade gild, to which admission was usually by birth, apprenticeship, gift or purchase.
	I have no need to tell your Lordships that that was essentially an arrangement made by and for men. When I read Peter Ackroyd's wonderful biography of London, I discovered that women too could assume a formidable position in the City of London. I would be interested to hear the answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The medieval widow had the scope to enter a world in which trade, matrimony and piety were thoroughly mingled. On the death of her husband, a woman could indeed become a freewoman of the city and was expected to continue her husband's old trade and business. I hazard a guess that that might have given rise to the notion of the merry widow. I am not sure whether the Wife of Bath was a freewoman in this sense, but research takes us into some interesting realms.
	I skip forward to the famous year of 1835, when the governance of local authorities along modern lines was recognised. It provided for the election of mayors, aldermen and councillors on a vote of those who occupied property within the municipality. The previous arrangements, which gave freemen special rights in the selection and governance of the pre-1935 corporate boroughs, were incorporated. As my noble friend said, the 1835 Act confirmed the rights that the freeman had before the Act, apart from admission by purchase or gift. The Act and its successors also froze the basis on which a person could be admitted to be a freeman. Such rights of admission, as my noble friend said, vary from place to place because they are based on established and ancient customs.
	Before I conclude, it is worth reflecting that, although the history is almost exclusively male-dominated, some female freemen have existed and no doubt they have played their full part, with their male colleagues, in these important traditions. In contrast, we also have this very proud history of women coming into national and local government and making an increasingly visible and indispensable contribution, as your Lordships know, in this House.
	It could be that whatever the merits of the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—upon which I stress that the Government are as neutral as they have been on the two previous occasions—admitting women could mean, more generally, a whole new adventure and meaning for freemen, while giving the institution more relevance for local people. I look forward to hearing the future of the Bill as it goes through this House.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to those friends in the House who have spoken in support and given the Bill a general welcome. We are like a repertory company—we perform the same Bill every two or three years and are very well received. Parliamentary procedures caused the second and third attempts to fail. I do not know what will happen in the other place; I have a colleague there who was very happy to take the Bill forward six months ago, and will be happy to do so again. The procedures and the opportunities for mischief, as I would call it, are probably greater in the other place than they are here. But I shall have to wait and see.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, teased me a little bit about heredity and the difference between hereditary Peers and the issue dealt with in the Bill. There is a world of difference between succeeding by right of heredity to act with others in managing the assets of the freemen of a town and being given the gift—as we all have in this place—of being here, and participating in the government of the country. I do not resile for a moment from my stand against the hereditary principle.
	Today we shall move the Bill on to the next stage. Sadly, it will not have left this House by the time that the House rises in July, but when we come back I shall be very pleased to continue any discussion that might arise.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	I declare an interest as the joint president, along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of the Association of London Government. I am pleased to see that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are in their places this afternoon.
	This is the latest in a long line of Bills promoted by London local authorities, in a tradition that goes far back into the 19th century. Indeed, in the case of Bills promoted by the Corporation of London, the tradition is far older than that. Noble Lords may ask why London in particular, to which I say this: the fact is that London has, over the decades, faced a number of unique problems that have required, and still require, unique solutions.
	Your Lordships may have been startled, as I was, at the length of the Bill, with 126 clauses covering 92 pages. The first point that I would make in that regard is that the figure may be misleading, as the Bill includes a Keeling schedule, which is something that I have always welcomed in legislation. Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out the provisions of earlier legislation on the topics that the Bill covers, amended by subsequent legislation and—as it will be—amended by this Bill. That schedule is of enormous help to those who have to administer this legislation.
	The previous eighth London Local Authorities Bill, which became the London Local Authorities Act 2004, was first deposited in Parliament in November 2001. Nothing could have been added since then. Therefore, this Bill is the accumulation of a number of years' desired powers, and, one hopes, coherently merged into one Bill, rather than in several.
	The Bill is being promoted by the Association of London Government, with Westminster City Council taking the lead on behalf of all the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London. For the first time, certainly in my recollection, all 33 London authorities have supported the Bill from the outset. The Bill contains a number of powers, to which I shall come in a moment, to enable London local government better to perform its duties in protecting and enhancing the quality of life of London's citizens.
	Indeed, while this Bill by its very nature applies only to the Greater London area, your Lordships may have noticed that where a power has been included in previous London Bills, and where its exercise has been shown to work well in London, it has then been taken up by central government in later public legislation. For example, fixed penalties for litter offences, now included in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and graffiti removal, now included in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, are just two among many examples of where legislation relating to London has later become part of general legislation.
	Indeed, since this Bill was first deposited in November last year, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 has been put on the statute book. That occurred somewhat hurriedly just before the election but it is there. Certainly there is some overlap between the clauses that were included in this Bill last November and what was included in that Act, which became law in May. The promoters of this Bill have assured me that where there is an explicit overlap between that Act and this Bill, and where they are satisfied that the relevant provisions in the 2005 Act are to be brought into force promptly, they will be very happy to withdraw the relevant clauses in Committee. They will, of course, continue to consider all the Government's concerns, of which I gather there are a number.
	I now turn to the provisions of this Bill. Part 1 contains major definitions and commencement provisions, and I do not need to weary your Lordships with that. Part 2 deals with a wide variety of issues relating to public health and the environment, which is now a common feature of the work of local government, and where certain problems are having a serious effect in London.
	Clause 5 relates to portable advertisements. At first I thought that meant A-frames sticking out on the pavement. However, those are covered by existing legislation. Clause 5 relates to those large placards on poles which are often held by a single individual, who sometimes walks up and down the pavement. One sees these in Oxford Street, for instance, stating, "all-you-can-eat for £5", with an arrow indicating where you can go to do so, or stating "Unique Golf Sale"—I have seen the latter in Regent Street. While obviously we would not wish to interfere with a sound commercial practice of advertising one's product, Westminster City Council, in whose locality by far the majority of these portable advertisements are found, has concluded that some of the placards are dangerous. When a large plastic sign on a substantial scaffolding pole is held by only one man, it only needs a strong gust of wind to blow the whole thing down. On a crowded pavement that could result in serious injury. These single portable advertisements, which are not subject to any existing advertising controls, also have a deleterious effect on the amenity of the local area. Therefore, Clauses 5 and 6 set out a regime to regulate such advertisements.
	Clause 7 relates to perhaps a rather more familiar problem—the advertisement in telephone boxes of prostitution, a regular scourge of those boxes in London. The Bill's intention is to enable any connection to the telephone numbers displayed on the advertisements to be barred by the relevant telecommunications provider. There are objections to that from some of the mobile service providers, and I hope that their concerns may be allayed by the time that the Bill reaches Committee. In fact, calls are already barred by British Telecom acting voluntarily, which results in prostitutes not using BT services. The Bill seeks to extend that good practice to other providers.
	Further clauses in Part 2 cover such areas as the effective management of fly-tipping and fly-posting by giving London local authorities the powers to seize the tools—for instance, the vans and lorries—of those guilty of fly-tipping and fly-posting. At the moment, fly-posters, if caught in such practices, are liable to pay a fixed penalty or receive a warning, but are then likely to carry on after the authorities have departed. There is no power to confiscate their posters, brushes, pots of paste or even vehicles.
	Other provisions in that part cover graffiti, waste, litter, chewing gum, abandoned vehicles, and the establishment of new action enforcement areas where the level of penalty is higher than in the normal environment. I shall give one example. The cost of removing chewing gum from pavements and other places is a huge problem for councils, particularly Westminster. Scientists at Bristol University have come up with a non-stick chewing gum, but they say that it could take some years to reach the market. In the mean time, we need additional protection, and the Bill gives councils power to forbid the sale of chewing gum in certain sensitive areas, which it is hoped will reduce the nuisance.
	Part 3 deals with a number of licensing issues which I understand are uncontentious. It will regulate the phenomenon of hostess bars or clip joints, as they are known on the street, which is a term of vague legal definition. Often tourists, and probably others I dare say, are unwittingly lured into such establishments and end their visit with a huge bill for non-alcoholic drinks at hugely inflated prices, accompanied with intimidation or a threat of violence. There have been prosecutions, but most of them have failed and the penalties when awarded are ridiculous. Clauses 44 to 46 propose to license those establishments. Part 3 also tidies up earlier legislation on street trading in Westminster.
	Part 4 relates to the registration of dealers in second-hand goods. The purpose is to try to limit the criminal sale of goods that perhaps have been stolen or come into the possession of the seller unlawfully. It is a wide area, covering firms trading in goods from everyday furniture to priceless antiques in auction houses such as Christie's and Sotheby's. The British Art Market Federation has objected to that part, which is Clauses 87 to 97. Perhaps the substantive discussion on the clauses should be left to the Select Committee stage, where those worries can be explored in detail.
	The clauses require the dealers to register with the council and keep full records of their transactions. They are intended to apply only to those dealing in second-hand goods,
	"in the course of the business",
	and are aimed at preventing the trade in stolen goods. This is not the first time that this has been done. Similar provisions were included in the Kent County Council Act 2001. Just as the police supported that in relation to Kent, so they are supporting the clauses now.
	Part 5 is an interesting but, I hope again, uncontentious provision. It sets out a standard regime for the enforcement of charges for offences that have been decriminalised, so that they are no longer fines for offences but charges for breaches of the law. That makes it general and it applies not only to this Bill but to future Bills and past Acts.
	Part 6 contains the final substantive set of clauses and deals with a number of miscellaneous provisions, on which I have no doubt some of your Lordships may wish to speak.
	Clause 110 relates to an issue common to many major thoroughfares in London and many other major towns; the process that has become known as "chugging", which I have always assumed is a merging of the words "charitable" and "mugging". It is the problem of accosting pedestrians and asking for charitable donations. Of course they have an admirable aim of funding the good work of the voluntary sector. What concerns local authorities is the sheer frequency with which this is done, which is causing some of the problems. Some of your Lordships may be aware that this is being addressed in the Charities Bill currently before the House. I know that the Home Office has some concerns over the clauses in this Bill and their relation to the Charities Bill. The promoters have assured me that they will review the clauses once it is clearer what the final form will be of the "chugging" provisions in Chapter 1, Part 3 of the Charities Bill.
	Clause 112 relates to just one area in London; namely, Lincoln's Inn Fields. It would not surprise me, in view of the large number of petitions put in against the clause, if one or more of your Lordships were to mention it this afternoon. The clauses will be fully considered in Committee, but I shall try to respond to any points that are raised today.
	Clause 114 addresses the power to disturb human remains, which is always a hugely sensitive matter. The clause is included in the Bill to enable the deepening of graves, once the proper period of time has elapsed, to allow further bodies to be buried within one site. I assure your Lordships that the clause provides that human remains that are disturbed will be properly re-interred in the same grave. The promoters have also assured me, because there were anxieties at an earlier stage, that the clause is not intended to include Commonwealth war graves, and only today, I have been told, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has withdrawn its petition on the Bill.
	Clause 120 is another contested clause, which makes provision for how London local authorities are to be made aware and kept informed about water pressure variation, which is particularly relevant to councils running tall residential tower blocks. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, may raise this issue later, and I hope that either I can answer his concerns today or that they will be properly dealt with in Committee. Clearly, if the residents on the upper floors of a large block are virtually going to lose any water supply, it seems important that the local authorities running those blocks should have some advance information.
	I apologise for having spoken at such length, but given the size of the Bill, I suspect that it was unavoidable. On that basis, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and I look forward to listening to the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—my joint president of the Association of London Government. In that capacity, we will present ourselves to its annual meeting next Tuesday in the fond belief that we will both be returned unopposed as joint presidents for many years to come. We do that with a background in local government and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, demonstrated his authority, knowledge and perspicacity in these matters.
	If I were asked what kind of a man I was, I would always say that I am a local government man, due to my background as a councillor, as a leader, as a deputy to Gerald Kaufman and Roy Hattersley—as spokesmen for local government in the other place—and with my links on behalf of the GLC. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that, from 1981 to 1986, the future of the GLC loomed large in the minds of many people. I have never hesitated to take advantage of an opportunity to become more knowledgeable about local government.
	Of course, as one moves away from the scene of activity, the memory blurs, but I stand here as a friend, not just of local government and local councillors, but of London authorities, because they have one of the world's worst jobs, by governing in a metropolis that constantly throws up fresh problems.
	The Bill provides this House with an opportunity to examine the issues that have bubbled along for years and years and have been put together in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly paid tribute to the quality of the work that is expected from the Select Committee. The Select Committee, not this House, will make the decisions and we know that everyone who is affected by the Bill will be well represented by the Select Committee. There will be agents, advocates and specialists. Each case will be presented and argued over and when the Bill emerges from the Select Committee we will see its quality and value.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, apologised for the time that he took to move the Second Reading, but, frankly, he could have spoken for much longer and still not done justice to the contents of the Bill—because it is a large Bill, perhaps, by comparison with previous Bills. Certainly, the Select Committee will undertake a major piece of work.
	I am especially interested by the problems addressed by Clauses 31 and 32. They seek to allow London local authorities to prevent the sale of gum in designated areas and to make it an offence to sell or offer to sell gum in those designated areas. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly drew attention to the problem, not the solution. The solutions proposed by the Bill are before us, but the noble Lord also mentioned the fact that Defra in 2004 established the Chewing Gum Action Group. I suppose that it is stuck with that title and it has work to do.
	The piece of paper from which I am reading represents the Local Government Association, the chewing gum industry, the Tidy Britain Group, DfES and the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management—all are reputable bodies. Frankly, I have never been bothered by the black stains on the pavement which, I understand, are chewing gum that has been trodden in. What I am interested in, particularly in the evidence given to the Select Committee, is whether banning the sale of chewing gum within a designated area will stop the chewing gum that has been bought in another area, chewed half way across London, but deposited in the designated area. How will stopping the sale of chewing in such an area prevent it being trodden in?
	I was interested to learn that people chew gum for an average of 24 minutes. I have never counted because I do not chew gum. But if people start to chew gum 24 minutes before depositing it wrongly—that is, on the pavement—how on earth can we stop them purchasing it in one area and chewing it on the way to the area in which they wrongfully deposit it? I do not make a case one way or the other. I am fully in support of any moves which tidy up our streets by actions—I refer to a great deal of the street furniture nexus with which we are plagued.
	Like many Members, I have been here long enough to be able to reflect on problems which appeared to be dealt with efficiently by a Bill which turned out later to be wrong. I am not too certain whether banning the sale of chewing gum in a designated area is the right way. The area must be arbitrarily fixed and delineated by the council. Chewing gum may be a moveable feast and there may be a change of habit. I simply enter an interest in the chewing-gum argument.
	Gum is chewed by millions of people. It is argued by those who are in favour of taking action by education that there are health aspects to it. I do not know, but when I raised the issue I was recently told that chewing gum wrappers invite the chewer to deposit his used gum in the wrapper and put is away properly. There is an educational job to be done.
	I noticed in the paper I read that Wrigleys is the biggest manufacturer. I have no need to declare an interest, other than a broad one as an officer of the All-Party Group for the Retail Industry, which on the margin may be affected. When I once went to Chicago, I passed the baseball ground and was told that it was Wrigleys' field. That alerted me. When I made inquiries, I noticed that the initials of Mr Wrigley was PK. When I was a boy, there were two kinds of chewing gum; one was Wrigleys spearmint and the other was Wrigleys PK. So chewing gum to me has been an educational tool. It is widened my knowledge of American entrepreneurs and I am grateful for that.
	I rise only, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on his comprehensive introduction to the Bill. It is a service which people such as and I can do for our colleagues. I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the Chamber. She is much closer to the action in local government than many if not all Members in the Chamber and she will know all about it. I wish the Bill well and I look forward to seeing whether, when we come to chewing gum, we are stuck with it.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have to declare a relevant interest as a bencher of Lincoln's Inn. Neither the Inn nor I myself have any financial interest under the Bill, but Clause 112 seriously affects the amenities of Lincoln's Inn, of the owners and occupiers of other buildings overlooking or within earshot of Lincoln's Inn Fields, and the public who enjoy exercising their right to make use of the fields.
	Lincoln's Inn Fields is a large garden, or small park, permanently open to the public. It has been open to the public since, I believe, 1657 and access has been regulated by statute since 1734. In the early days it had something of a raffish reputation. Duels were customarily fought there and there was a significant number of brothels in the near neighbourhood. However, in modern times, it is all very different. The fields now contain many fine trees, lawns, flowerbeds, a couple of tennis courts and a netball pitch. They are used by picnickers, for relaxation by local office workers and for other uses such as being somewhere for the local nursery schools to bring the children for some fresh air.
	Under Section 45 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1894, the LCC took permanent control of Lincoln's Inn Fields. That control has since devolved on the Camden Borough Council. Under Section 45 of the 1894 Act, provisions were included for the protection of Lincoln's Inn and the owners, lessees and occupiers of buildings in Lincoln's Inn Fields. Those who are protected included, in addition to Lincoln's Inn itself, the Soane Museum and the Royal College of Surgeons, both of which have petitioned against Clause 112 of the Bill, as have the Open Spaces Society, the Camden Civic Society and others. Section 45(7) provides that no buildings, except for the maintenance of the garden, are to be erected in the garden and no marquee or tent is to be erected in any part of the garden.
	Clause 112 of the Bill, if enacted, would enable the Camden Borough Council to enclose parts of Lincoln's Inn Fields for certain periods of time, to exclude the public from the enclosed areas and to erect temporary structures in those areas for the purpose of events. The word "events" is not defined. The parts that can be enclosed are the central section of the fields, amounting in total, I suppose, to a fifth or sixth of its area.
	The events may be held during a continuous period of six weeks in November, December and January and for a total of not more than 42 days in the rest of the year. The structures must be temporary, but they are not subject to any time limit; for example, if there is an event on Monday evening and another on Saturday evening, it seems that there is no need in the interim to remove the structure. Therefore the structure could be up for a large part of the year, particularly in June and July when public use is at its highest, and the demand for function space is also very high.
	On a number of occasions in 2002 and 2003, Camden Borough Council let the central part of the garden to an events company which erected a large, two-floor, metal-framed, solid structure in that area. That structure was then let by the borough council for the purpose of corporate events, on occasions for more than 1,000 people. Those events caused serious disturbance to people working in or near Lincoln's Inn Fields until a resident of Lincoln's Inn pointed out that the activities were in fact in breach of the law as provided by the 1894 Act. As a result, the council had to discontinue its use of the fields.
	It appears that the purpose of Clause 112 is to enable such events to resume on a large scale. The only serious restriction on those events, apart from the limitation on the number, is that the events must finish not later than 1 am. Therefore, when events are being held, there is likely to be a great deal of noise and disturbance taking place late into the night. Lincoln's Inn and the buildings in and around Lincoln's Inn Fields contain offices where people work late into the evening; 4,000 people work in Lincoln's Inn alone. There are 70 flats in Lincoln's Inn, and if loud music is being played in Lincoln's Inn Fields, most are within earshot. There is an unknown but significant number of other flats in buildings facing Lincoln's Inn Fields, all within earshot.
	Further noise and obstruction will be caused by vehicles involved in the erection and removal of the structures, in catering, in rubbish collection and by the vehicles that people use to attend the functions. There will be substantial interference with the enjoyment of Lincoln's Inn Fields by the public, not only when the functions are going on but for as long as the structures are present, even if not for the time being in use.
	Clause 112 is completely unacceptable, I believe, to the people who are living or working in or near Lincoln's Inn Fields. Even if one were to accept that the fields could be used for occasional functions, the number of days allowed by Clause 112 is far too many; closure at 1 am is far too late; there should be a duty to remove the structure between functions unless they are very close together in time; and there should be strict restrictions on noise levels.
	One should ask, however, why should there be commercial events at all in Lincoln's Inn Fields? Nobody would object to something like a party for local school children, but what Camden Borough Council wants to do is to wreck the peace and beauty of one of our oldest and pleasantest public gardens in London in order to make money out of corporate events. I believe that that is unacceptable and I hope that Clause 112 will be deleted from the Bill when it gets to Committee.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I thought that that was a powerful speech on Clause 112. I hope that the Bill's sponsor will take careful note of it.
	We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the Bill is sponsored by all of the London boroughs. We can see from a glance at the table of contents that it covers a huge variety of local government concerns, from graffiti, litter and noise to street trading, hostess bars and dealers in second-hand goods. It is a great mélange of proposals, in many cases seeking to add to or alter both private and general legislation passed by Parliament quite recently.
	The proposed individual powers each call for a great deal of justification. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, expressed surprise—I do not see how he could be surprised—by the fact that 26 organisations have been moved to petition against the Bill. I have a connection with two of them: Three Valleys Water plc, of which I am a former non-executive director, and the National Joint Utilities Group.
	The water company makes a particularly strong case against Clause 120—though I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for mentioning that clause and saying that he expected me to be an opponent of it. Clause 120 says that before a water company may lower the mains water pressure in its water mains and other pipes used for domestic water purposes, the company must consult the relevant borough council. That in itself sounds perfectly reasonable. However, let us look at the existing requirements on water companies.
	The Water Industry Act 1991 puts a legal duty on the water companies to maintain water pressure. This new obligation seems an unnecessary, superfluous and burdensome obligation. Section 65 of the 1991 Act imposes a duty on every water company to supply water for domestic purposes,
	"at such pressure as will cause the water to reach . . . the top-most storey of every building"
	in its area.
	In addition, the powerful water regulator—and nobody has suggested that it is a feeble institution—usually known as Ofwat, sets a minimum water pressure in the condition it imposes when licensing water companies and has powers of enforcement. I am pretty sure that Ofwat, the specific industry regulator, is in a better position than any local authority to impose operational standards on a water company; and it has enforcement powers, as I indicated. The proposed additional criminal sanction in Clause 120 seems to me to be superfluous.
	Water pressure management is a complex specialist issue and particular problems can arise following burst water mains. An additional requirement to consult one or more local authorities, or to give local authorities an opportunity to second guess the industry regulator, would only hamper operational needs to control quickly the results of pipe busts.
	Having begun my perusal of the Bill by looking at the problem posed in Clause 120, I then looked at several other provisions. Often they seek to increase the stringency of existing statutory requirements before enough time has elapsed to review adequately the effectiveness of existing law.
	Clause 14, for example, deals with the cleanliness of billboard surfaces, which is already covered by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Clause 20, on graffiti defacing buildings, reduces the compliance period, set only 10 years ago, for people served with a notice to remove graffiti. Oddly, Clause 20 also decreases further the period allowed for the removal of graffiti in London, compared with the rest of England and Wales. That exemplifies the general point that London borough councils seem to want to continue increasing their powers and the stringency of those powers without explaining why there should be one law for London and another for the rest of the country, including major cities with many of the same problems such as Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and the like. Why is a Private Member's Bill needed and taking up parliamentary time, with its great complex of powers, when national laws have been enacted, often quite recently and after the more normal parliamentary process of Public Bill scrutiny?
	I look at the Liberal Democrat Benches in mentioning my final point. Last Thursday one of their leading lights, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, opened a debate in this House calling for decentralisation and greater local autonomy. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Desai, speakers seemed to blame central government for all the evils of regulation. Having listened to some of that debate and read the rest of it, I believe that local government can be just as prone to over-regulation. This amazingly detailed Bill, with its 120 clauses and so on, seems an example of that tendency.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that I welcome the Keeling schedule, Schedule 3, and will deduct it from my comment on the huge number of pages giving all those powers. Of course I welcome some of the provisions. As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton says, although the chewing gum provisions deserve questioning, nobody doubts that there is a problem in our cities, perhaps particularly in London. We will consider that very carefully.
	Ultimately, all the proposed powers would result in a huge number of detailed regulations. It is a responsibility of local government, and I question whether one wants so much additional local regulation on top of the existing national regulation.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made a very powerful case. I have seen many of the advertisements spread over councils and boroughs by people paid to do so, with little regard for residents. It must be a good thing to deal with the time for which that form of corporate litter is left on our streets. The question that the noble Lord raised was why London should be different. I hope that the rest of the country will follow. There has been some good practice in boroughs such as Camden, where those producing fly-posters have been prosecuted. That has reduced the problem greatly. Indeed, I saw somebody using a cut-out strip to spray-paint the name of a band in several places down a street. I am certain that that was paid for by the advertising company. That is corporate vandalism that should be dealt with in the strongest possible terms. I support reducing the occasions on which that is allowed.
	It is an excellent Bill in many parts, but I have several issues to raise. The second issue is a minor one relating to Clause 85, which deals with the issue of special treatment and would allow a council to exempt itself from the provision in the Licensing Act 2003 limiting to 15 the number of council members who can sit on a licensing committee. I hope that the Select Committee will read in Hansard what was said during the passage of the 2003 Act. It is an interesting point that we had specific problems with local authorities having to meet such a criterion. It would be useful for the Select Committee to consider the number of councillors who could sit on the licensing committee.
	I have a small issue about trade in second-hand goods. I managed to get hold of the London Local Authorities Bill from the Private Bill Office only yesterday, and I have not studied it in the massive detail that, I think, many people believe that the Bill deserves. However, I raise the issue of the sale of second-hand goods. The provisions on it are excellent. One of the great blights that stop people switching from public transport to bicycles is the problem of bicycle theft, which is on an almost industrial level.
	Recently, I went to my local bicycle shop—Chamberlaine's in Kentish Town—and spent about £80 on two chains to take round with me. They cost a fortune and weigh a tonne. I asked the guy behind the counter who, luckily, is very honest, "How many hours will it take them to get through those?". He said, "If they have the right tools, it will take them about two and a half minutes each. If you buy three, it could take them seven and a half minutes, and they might not try". That is the problem.
	There are not many security measures that will match the technology that can remove the chains. The one way of dealing with the issue is to stop the people who sell the bicycles at the marketplaces. I know that the police have tried and that the London Cycling Campaign has been a leading light, going to the markets and raising the issue, but it is difficult to prosecute the people who sell the bicycles. You have to prove where the parts came from and that they were stolen in the first place. The Bill will license that trade, and I hope that it will go through unaltered on that.
	The Bill says that a person is covered by the provisions if they buy the items in the borough, are resident in the borough and sell within it. I am sure that my question will be a difficult one to answer, so I do not expect an answer today, but I would like to know whether the Bill also covers transactions on the Internet through eBay. I know that eBay hides behind the fact that it calls itself an Internet information provider, not a dealer, but would an individual in London selling on eBay to somebody else in London fall under the provisions of the Bill as somebody selling second-hand goods?
	The last issue that I want to raise is one about which I feel particularly strongly and which my noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised so eloquently. It is always difficult to follow my noble friend, who made an excellent speech, so rather than follow the issues concerning Clause 112, I will just ask some questions.
	Lincoln's Inn Fields is one of the green and open spaces within London. There is a real question whether the local authority—Camden—should be trying to amend the 1894 Act. The 1894 Act set up that green park and open space for the benefit of Londoners. I find it absolutely unacceptable that the Borough of Camden has decided that it wants to make money out of it. I understand and have no difficulty with the fact that local authorities are looking for means of revenue-raising because they are under pressure to provide good services.
	However, there are several question marks over the provision of Lincoln's Inn Fields. There are all those people who use it—it is a very popular spot. There are all those businesses that will be affected, especially sites such as the nationally renowned Soane Museum, a museum of international regard, that will be faced by those large structures. I find that unacceptable. As I understand the 1894 Act, that public space was given over only because businesses gave up their own frontages. That is now being thrown back in their face and they will have to face the consequences of large marquees. My noble friend Lord Goodhart asked why; obviously, it is in order to raise money, but we must look at the record. There is a question mark over whether Camden council, which has been putting on local events in Lincoln's Inn Fields, has been using it illegally.
	I was surprised that correspondence has described how the council has only been using those structures for 28 days at one time and were only considering using them for 12 weeks of the year. If it is considering that at present, my understanding is that that is breaking planning law, because you are allowed to use such a space for temporary events for only 28 days in total in one year, not 28 in one stretch.
	The second question is: has Camden an exemplary record in the management and control of such events? The answer is no. Difficulties have arisen, which have led to a fine on the operator and a vast number of question marks.
	Camden council seems to spend vastly more than any other in London on consultation, so I know that it has consulted. As it is proposing the legislation, it must have consulted fully and properly; that is the minimum that could be expected. I therefore ask the Committee to find out who it has consulted and on what basis. As I understand it, there are question marks over whether that consultation was adequate with interested parties who live in the area.
	My noble friend Lord Goodhart has raised many of the other points that I was going to raise. I did not realise that it had been such a racy area in the past; more recently, it has had a reputation for various things. We should not underestimate the value of that amenity to London. It is imperative that we do not allow the pecuniary interests of a council, however stretched it is and however well-meaning, to take away from the public spaces that are so few and far between. More and more seem to be built on every week.
	Where would the money raised from that go? Would it go to create further open spaces within London? If not, we are losing an open space and not replacing it. I therefore end by saying that I hope that that clause is struck out of the Bill.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thought that I had put my name on the list to speak, but I shall speak briefly in the gap. I have spoken to the National Joint Utilities Group and there are several points of principle that concern me. My first concern is directors' liability. Under Clauses 10 and 11, after three advertising offences there is a £20,000 fine and a director can be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. If that sort of responsibility is to be thrown at directors, who on earth will want to sit on the board of a national utility or one of the larger telecoms companies?
	Secondly, the practicality of barring numbers sounds good in principle but, ultimately, people can change their number quite quickly. With all the new voice-over IP that is coming, numbers will be far more flexible and will be much harder to bar. There will be interchangeable e-mail and telephone numbers. The world could change so much by the time this comes into play that it is impractical and will put a rather onerous provision on people.
	Thirdly, to prevent breaches of Clause 14, are the utilities supposed to employ private police to go around patrolling to ensure no one puts anything on their surfaces or street furniture? If they have to do that because they will get done under this Bill when it becomes an Act, we should think of the increasing costs, which will mean a reduction in services in other areas or, alternatively, there will be price rises.
	Fourthly, Clause 20 shifts responsibility from the perpetrator; that is, from the sinner to the body sinned against. It penalises the latter with costs and financial liabilities, which I do not think is very fair. We have never tended to do that in law and should look carefully at what liabilities we are forcing on the utilities.
	Fifthly, the power to cut alarm cables willy-nilly outside buildings is very dangerous. What happens if the wrong cable is cut and an emergency service, control system or remote alert to tell people that there is a problem is cut off? That must be treated with extreme caution. Sixthly, why are there so much more onerous timescales in this Bill than in other legislation covering these sorts of events? What is the special case here?
	Seventhly, I am sure that there will be conflicts between this Act, if it becomes an Act, and other Acts; for instance, the water pressure issue has been raised and Ofwat's role, which comes under other legislation. Noise nuisance and noise pollution Acts, and a lot of legislation, cover this already. Trying to control the whole of human life and action with increasingly complex rules means that we will get more and more conflicts, rules will do less and less controlling as they appear to become more irrational and they will conflict with each other. Of course, wrongdoers will be able to find their way around the rules because it is all laid out neatly in front of them. We are beginning to try to over-control human life and existence. The chewing gum issue is a typical example of something that people will laugh at.
	Eighthly, and finally, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Why is London a special case? Does this not happen in every city, in which case why are we not dealing with it at a national level?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who, as well as introducing the Bill, has declared my interest as one of the triumvirate, if that is not aggrandising ourselves too much, of the joint presidency of the Association of London Government.
	Private Bills are quite a cumbersome process. Those of us who have lived with the administration of local government and have often wished for a power of general competence might say that—I am raising a philosophical point, I appreciate—if it were easier to get on with doing things instead of having to observe the need for legislation for every tiny aspect of enforcement, in some ways life might be more difficult. I do not want to tempt the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on this too much—at least, not yet.
	As has been said, there are many clauses in the Bill, but there are relatively few which create new obligations or give new powers. What the London boroughs seek in many cases is to tweak or update existing provisions, thus enabling them—on the basis of experience, though sometimes that is short, I accept—to apply legislation which is substantively already in place. As a matter of principle, where a proposal is local it seems best that its scrutiny is conducted locally as well. Moreover, if by historical accident legislation requires Parliament to consider whether the use of certain powers is appropriate or whether alteration is needed, in the year 2005 Parliament should consider seriously, in an atmosphere that many of us would like to see more devolved than it is, how far it should involve itself—I use that rather pejorative term quite deliberately—in consideration of such detail. As far as possible a local authority should justify itself to its own electors and residents.
	Whether the Bill will emerge from its process in this form remains to be seen, but there is a point about accountability here. As a general principle, I want to express the hope that the giving of powers to local authorities and how they exercise those powers should be a matter for which they are held accountable. Just before I came into the Chamber I was asked for my views on the Lincoln's Inn Fields clause. I would say that it falls into this category: give the local authority powers and let it hold itself accountable to its own community. The Committee will hear about the general provisions on noise and so forth, which may answer some of the questions and concerns raised. I accept that open space in London is precious, but I doubt that it is for this House to pick on one piece of open space that is within the control of another tier of government. Given that we have a regional tier of government in London, the Bill has also made me reflect on whether in the future there might be some role for it to contribute to some of these issues.
	The Bill reflects very much the concerns of London local authorities as expressed to them by local people. The briefing sent to myself and no doubt to other noble Lords from the Association of London Government refers to effects on tourists and businesses. For instance, my experience of listening to residents talking about "clipping" establishments in Soho suggests that this is not just about the effect on tourists and how they are lured in; it is offensive and distressing to the many local residents as well. The same applies to "carding", to which I shall turn later. Indeed, one is being introduced to a whole new vocabulary here.
	The Bill may look like a bit of a rag-bag, but in fact it is very coherent. It reflects on concerns about the personal environment, the public realm and its effect personally, and enviro-crime. Some topical matters are raised. We have heard about the issue of water pressure. Abandoned cars are also topical, but the timing is rather ironic given that it appears that central government are about to withdraw funding for local authorities to remove abandoned vehicles.
	We all experience and dislike graffiti, and here I come to my reservations about the legislation. I hope that it will turn out to be realistic. A period of 14 days does not seem to be that unreasonable a period in which to remove graffiti. Requiring it to be removed within seven days could be difficult.
	As to Clause 21, which relates to the placing of refuse containers and other receptacles which might be detrimental to amenities, I plead guilty to having a bin on the forecourt of the house of which my flat is a part. As with many dwellings in London, there is nowhere else to put it. One has to work within the character of London as it is—and it is a city which is crammed full.
	The Bill contains provisions in relation to the enforcement of the laws on litter. I often wish that I had the courage to say to someone who has dropped litter, "You have just dropped this". I know people who have had the courage to say that. It is a cultural issue—we have, perhaps, become too timid—but enforcement requires the consent of society.
	Happily, our culture is one where not everything requires regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to boroughs over-regulating. I pay tribute to one piece of work which has not required regulation but has been an example of sharing standards of best practice—that is, the capital standards work, so called, which encourages boroughs not only to share best practice but to be consistent in applying it—for instance, in their attitude towards fines for dropping litter—so that the same approach is adopted across the capital.
	As regards chewing gum, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that I was closer to the action. I can assure him that I am not closer to chewing gum—I almost said that as he made the point—but, like the noble Lord, I rather wonder about the relevant provisions.
	I did not know that the average time taken to chew a piece of gum is 24 minutes. The "chew time" must differ widely between different chewers. It is perfectly clear that there must be standard times for the creation of some kinds of litter. With takeaways, for instance, the litter created by fried chicken boxes is in direct correlation to the location of outlets—it takes a more or less standard time to consume a takeaway portion of fried chicken—but chewing gum is different. I doubt whether designating areas where sales of chewing gum are controlled will have any affect at all—other than to bring local authorities into disrepute, and that would concern me greatly.
	I referred earlier to the issue of "carding"—that is, the placing in telephone boxes of cards advertising the services of prostitutes. I am aware that the operators of the mobile telephone industry have considerable concerns about what in the briefing—which inevitably is relatively short—they call "litter". The problem extends far beyond litter; many people find the cards offensive. I hope that, among others, the Select Committee will hear from the Metropolitan Police about its experience in dealing with carding.
	The London Assembly, which I currently chair, is about to agree—by this time in the afternoon it probably now has agreed—a report which, in part, deals with prostitute carding. Perhaps I may share a little of the report with your Lordships. It found that carding is a significant problem not only in Westminster but in many other boroughs, including Camden, Brent, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea and the Corporation of London. Its effect on tourism is also mentioned in the report.
	The Assembly committee heard from BT, which has tried to reduce the number of prostitute cards by the use of CCTV and non-stick surfaces; by joint operations with the police, the immigration service—the connection of these cards with the abuse of immigrants will not have escaped your Lordships' notice—and local authorities; and by liaising with the courts, blitz cleaning and call barring.
	BT made the point that for call barring to work effectively, all the operators need to take part in this process. I accept that technology is moving fast, but unless all the operators take part in an operation to bar calls, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that barring calls will not work.
	Finally, the committee recommended that Ofcom consider the implementation of an effective pan-industry system.
	My concern about portable advertisements had been for what I had guessed might be the exploitation of the people who carry them, but I am glad that they will not be outlawed. When I first came to London in the 1960s, a fixture—if that is not the wrong word—in Oxford Street was the bearer of the portable advertisement who was concerned with the effect of beans, protein and sitting. I am sure that other noble Lords will remember him.
	I support the Bill which, if given a Second Reading, will go before a committee. It is right that representations on it should be heard. However, I urge the committee to leave as much as possible to local authorities, which do not lightly ask for powers. Local authorities generally try to achieve the substance of existing legislation. If they identify the need for more powers to do so, that must be taken seriously, because they are, after all, best placed to know what works best for their community.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his detailed introduction of the Bill. I am also grateful for his brief assistance when I realised that I would have to do something with it on the Floor of the House this afternoon. However, as he pointed out, since the Bill will go through a Select Committee procedure rather than a general Committee procedure, there will be ample time for detailed consideration of all the points raised in the Bill and in this debate.
	When I began to consider the Bill I was tempted down the road taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding local authorities' power of general competence. That issue was always around when I was involved in local government and local authorities were always begging for this power. In general, I thought that it was a good idea. However, having listened to the debate today, one begins to understand why it might not be quite such a good idea.
	We need to bear in mind that the Bill does not tweak powers but changes some of them quite considerably. Local authority accountability is very important. However, it is a matter of regret to me that local authorities are largely funded nationally, the standards set nationally and the finances guaranteed nationally. Therefore, on balance, I would come down against such a power. In any event, it would spoil such wonderful sport as we have had this afternoon in our very educational debate on many significant London matters.
	I shall run through a number of points in the Bill. I am afraid that the issue of prostitutes' phone cards in phone boxes is going to be a problem for as long as that trade exists. I am told that it is oldest profession, although there is some doubt about that. People will find a way of communicating. More importantly, however, the number of phone boxes on the street has greatly diminished. That reduces the problem to some extent, although one should realise that there is a distinction between a BT phone line and a mobile phone. One can cut off a BT phone line very easily—it is a physical act—but with mobile phones, when a customer can change his phone very quickly, cutting off the phone line is not an effective means of prohibition.
	One can envisage a situation where cutting off mobile phone numbers results in more cards and more work for the people who go round removing them, because of the possibility of a much higher rate of turnover. That is a matter which can be decided only in a detailed and thorough examination in Committee. No doubt that will happen.
	I turn to Clauses 10 and 11. Like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I found myself wondering about the appropriateness of the penalties that are being suggested for unauthorised advertising. The Bill juxtaposes the disqualification of a company director where he is found guilty of three offences in five years, and increasing the maximum fine to £20,000 from the present level 4, again for three offences in five years. Are those very high penalties consistent with penalties for unauthorised advertising under general legislation? That point ought to be examined.
	In Clause 16, I found an interesting point about items being seized on the suspicion of someone's involvement in illegal advertising but when no case is brought or proven. The Bill states that,
	"the relevant object shall, at the appropriate time, be returned".
	"At the appropriate time" is a very open-ended time commitment as far as I can see. That too needs serious consideration.
	The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, raised the issue of prohibiting the sale of chewing gum in designated areas. I cannot help but wonder how effective such legislation would be. I entirely agree that it is very offensive to see pavements spotted with chewing gum, looking like spotted Dalmatian dogs. But London is a great tourist centre, and I find it impossible to believe that banning the sale of chewing gum anywhere in London is going to make a great deal of difference. We cannot prevent people buying it in their ports, airports or towns of origin and so on. The issue goes back to what was said about culture and the need to change people's attitudes so that it is not an automatic reaction to dump their litter or, heaven help us, their chewing gum quid on the street. That is the flaw and the cure will not lie in this sort of legislation and regulation, however much we might wish it to do so.
	Another issue that needs to be treated very carefully is the disturbance of graves, which is covered by Clause 114. I have some doubts about the timeliness of this provision. An acquaintance told me about an elderly relative who wanted go back to see the grave of his parents and found that it had been disturbed. I accept that the Bill requires that any bodies exhumed should be reinterred in the same grave and that it should all be done properly. But before any such disturbance takes place—because some families are very large—the timescale ought to be increased or the level of publicity given to the proposal ought to be increased.
	Finally, I turn to the interesting case of Lincoln's Inn Fields. It would have been remarkable if the lawyers did not have a great deal to say on that subject; but I cannot help feeling that the proposal to turn that area into one of public entertainment—in contravention, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, and as far as one can make out, of the general development orders within existing planning legislation—would not be a reasonable thing to do.
	So while the Bill is welcome—and it does introduce a lot of subjects that need to be thought about—it needs to be considered in relation to existing provisions, with a very clear idea of what is actually practical and with clear consideration of what the consequences would be of passing it. With that very hesitant qualification, I am glad to support the Bill at this stage.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, this is a private Bill, and your Lordships will understand that, by convention, the Government will take an officially neutral standpoint. The Bill is clearly fascinating to your Lordships and it has been a fascinating debate, but it rests upon me to give you the Government's view of the impact of its provisions, particularly in relation to other relevant legislation and policies.
	From the noble Lord's opening words, noble Lords will understand that this is a private Bill which has been promoted by the London boroughs. Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the breadth of the Bill, and the wide range of issues that it covers. Indeed, I have rarely seen a Bill that impacts quite so much on life's rich tapestry, as it were—from the disturbance in Lincoln's Inn Fields to the disturbance of human remains. Because it is so wide, it brings itself to the attention of many different government departments, with their interests and responsibilities. That includes my own department, the ODPM, the Home Office, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Transport, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	The Government generally welcome the focus of the Bill because much of its aim is to improve quality of life in London, by strengthening boroughs' enforcement powers to tackle some of the very important issues that can drag down the quality of life in this great city that we live in. I refer to graffiti, fly-posting, fly-tipping, litter, noise, and illegal street trading. These issues are also at the top of the Government's agenda, and particularly my department's agenda, and we recognise the importance of working with local authorities on those concerns. However, many of the departments that I mentioned have concerns, and in some cases these are significant objections, or they are minor points of drafting or amendment.
	I understand that officials have, on a number of occasions, discussed the Bill's proposals with the promoters, and have written to them. The discussions are continuing, and I trust that the promoters will ensure that they continue as quickly and constructively as possible before this Bill enters its Committee stage in this House, which will consider the Bill's provisions in detail. Where significant concerns remain, Ministers will wish to consider submitting a report to the Committee. At 126 clauses, this is a substantial and complex Bill, and it will need careful and thorough consideration before it goes on to another place.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out, there are already 26 petitions down against various aspects of the Bill. I am sure that its promoters will want to consult and negotiate where appropriate to resolve some of those issues before the Bill reaches a Select Committee.
	There is one aspect of the Bill in particular to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The Government made an assessment of the Bill's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, as we are required to do. This was sent to the Chairman of Committees on 26 January this year. There are some aspects of the Bill, to which I shall refer, where we believe that issues of incompatibility are raised. I know that the House will want to consider those concerns very carefully. I shall return to them when I outline the Government's position on the provisions on licensing of special treatment, the provisions on disclosure of information and those on water pressure variation.
	I now turn to the detailed provisions. I apologise that my speaking notes are quite long. However, I believe that it is helpful to the promoters of the Bill and to the House as a whole to set out the Government's position on these issues so that no one is in doubt.
	Clauses 5 and 6 relate to hand-held advertisements and advertisements displayed in other ways such as attaching them to poles and to backpacks. Clause 6 provides for a prohibition on the display of these advertisements within a "designated area" unless the advertisement is displayed in accordance with subsection (2). Clause 6 also defines portable advertisements as those not subject to advertising regulations.
	My department is concerned that the definition of portable advertisements is too broad and is considering the need to submit a report to the committee. The definition is difficult to interpret and impractical to enforce and is therefore potentially ineffective. ODPM intends to consult on new regulations later this year specifically to exclude from the definition of "advertisement",
	"a placard or other object borne by an individual or an animal".
	These new regulations will clarify the position.
	I turn to a completely different area of the Bill—prostitutes' cards and mobile and e-mail blocking. Clause 7 concerns the barring of mobile phone numbers and messages to e-mail addresses on prostitutes' cards, for example where left in a phone box. I appreciate the educative value of the debate as I have now learnt there is such a thing as carding, which has nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution. We all benefit from such exchanges.
	The Government sympathise with the aim of Clause 7. Prostitutes' cards can be offensive and a nuisance to local communities. In 2001, we introduced legislation to make it an offence to place prostitutes' cards in telephone boxes, and we have welcomed voluntary steps taken by the communications industry to play its part in addressing the problem.
	I understand that Ministers at the DTI have already submitted a report to the committee. The report makes clear that the Government believe the clause is unhelpful in two respects. First, the benefits of call-barring as proposed in Clause 7 are not proven, and the costs on business have not been properly calculated. Secondly, the Government intend to address the issue of whether a statutory call-barring scheme would be feasible and effective in the coming months as part of the current consultation exercise, Paying the Price. This will include assessment of whether the measure is compatible with the overall system of communications regulation in the UK. Any proposed measure would be subject to a proper regulatory impact assessment. The Government believe that the measure represents poor regulatory practice and have proposed to the committee that it should be removed from the Bill.
	Clause 9 relates to unauthorised advertisements. Under current law boroughs can give notice to remove or obliterate unauthorised advertisements. This has led to the situation where persons have obliterated one unauthorised advertisement simply by placing another unauthorised advertisement on top of it. Clause 9 is designed to rectify the situation by providing that the notice would have to require the unauthorised advertisement to be removed, and making it clear that obliteration of the advertisement is an alternative requirement which need not necessarily be in the notice.
	My department is concerned that further legislation is not necessary and is considering the need to submit a report to the committee. We consider that a second offence has been committed by covering up the first poster with a new poster. Further guidance is needed—not legislation—and we expect to consult later this year.
	Clause 10 exercised both the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. This would permit a court to make a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against an individual convicted of a third trade advertising offence. Such an order would mean, in effect, that the individual concerned could not run a company for up to five years. The DTI is concerned that that may be an inappropriate and disproportionate response to the problem of unauthorised advertising. Officials in the Insolvency Service have therefore raised the concerns with the Bill's promoters and will consider making a report to the committee.
	I shall turn to costs to telecommunications and rail companies. There are some concerns about measures in Part 2 concerning unauthorised advertisements, fly-tipping, removal of graffiti, and other matters. Network Rail, for example, has petitioned against clauses which it believes may impose substantial costs on the railways in London. I understand that officials in the Department for Transport have raised concerns with the promoters about the practical and substantial financial implications of the proposals for the whole transport sector and are considering submitting a report to the committee.
	The DTI will consider submitting a report about Clauses 14, 20, 40, 41, 42 and 113, which contain measures that could be prohibitively expensive for its telecommunications stakeholders. The departments are concerned that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the benefits from implementing the Bill's measures will outweigh the costs to the telecommunication and rail sectors.
	I shall come to parts of the Bill that we believe conflict with legislation; the point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Some of the provisions of the Bill conflict with existing legislation—namely, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which received Royal Assent on 7 April. That Act provides local authorities and the Environment Agency with wide-ranging new powers to improve local environmental quality and tackle anti-social behaviour.
	The Act provides greater local flexibility to local authorities to issue on-the-spot fines and pursue offenders, covering a wide range of anti-social offences detrimental to the quality of the local environment. Those include littering, fly-posting, abandoned and nuisance vehicles, waste and fly-tipping, night-time nuisance noise and light pollution. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs considers that Clauses 9, 15 to 19, 25, 26, 29, 33, 36 and 37 may contradict or duplicate the new legislation. It will consider submitting a report to the committee to that effect.
	Clause 9 amends Section 10 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, which makes provision about unauthorised hoardings. Defra wishes to highlight that Section 10 is repealed by part 3 of Schedule 5 to the 2005 Act. It is intended to bring that repeal into force by commencement order in April 2006. Clauses 15 to 19 propose powers for dealing with fly-tipping. Those measures largely duplicate new powers that have been included in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. They are therefore unnecessary. Officials have brought that point to the attention of the Bill's promoters.
	Defra officials consider that Clause 25, which introduces a system of penalty charges for a failure to follow regulations on waste receptacles, is inconsistent with Section 48 of the clean neighbourhoods Act. Section 48 introduces the option of fixed penalty notices for those committing offences under Sections 46 and 47 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which relate to the provision and sitting of receptacles for the collection of household and commercial waste respectively. Defra considers that those offences should remain criminal ones and not be decriminalised.
	Clause 26 extends the land areas covered within the definition of,
	"relevant land within a litter control area of a local authority",
	in Sections 87(3)(b), 91(1) and 92 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 90 of that Act on litter control areas ceases to have effect under Section 20 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. It is intended to commence that by order in April 2006. Powers in Section 20 of the 2005 Act are wider. A litter clearing notice can be served in respect of any land open to the air except land already covered by the duty to clear litter. Again, that point has been brought to promoters of the Bill.
	Clause 29 proposes powers to require the removal of unlawfully deposited waste. Defra opposes that clause as it could unfairly penalise genuine victims of illegal waste disposal. Again, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 took a slightly different approach to deal with the removal of illegally deposited waste. That has been brought to the attention of the Bill's promoters.
	Clause 33 makes changes to the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys. Those would enable councils to recover the costs of removing and storing the trolley from the person whom they believe to be the owner, whether or not they claim it. Defra considers that clause unnecessary as Section 99 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 introduces the amendment on a national basis. It is intended to bring that into force, again by commencement order in April 2006.
	Clauses 36 and 37 are also inconsistent with measures in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. The Act repeals Section 23 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 and introduces easier-to-use powers to enable local authorities to tackle annoyance from audible intruder alarms across England and Wales as an alternative to existing duties under the statutory nuisance regime of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Government consider that it is hard to justify two regimes on audible intruder alarms being available to London local authorities in addition to existing duties.
	There was an agitated debate on chewing gum. We have a slightly different line on chewing gum from the one that noble Lords have been debating this afternoon, but I hope that it is equally supportive. Some aspects of the Bill raise important issues of public health. The Department of Health has serious concerns about the inclusion of nicotine chewing gum within the scope of Clause 31, which would restrict the sale and supply of chewing gum. As noble Lords know because it is so often said in this House, smoking is the UK's single greatest cause of preventable illness and early death. More than 120,000 people in the UK die from smoking each year. It has been government policy for some years to make nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum, more widely available. Nothing should be done to restrict access to nicotine chewing gum, as that would make it more difficult to achieve the reduction in smoking, which is one of our key public health targets, and it would be contrary to existing policy.

Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords. I was going to say, "I will eschew the debate on chewing gum". Sorry. I cannot compete with the noble Lord. We have to liven this up somehow.
	I shall now address the issues of hostess bars, near beer, street trading, and special treatment licenses. In Part 3, Clauses 47 to 61 concern the regulation of street trading. The Government have concerns about the way in which the provisions relating to food seizures have been drafted, which the Department of Health will take up with the promoters. Chapter 3 of Part 3 introduces changes to powers to license special treatment, primarily to introduce a licensing regime for special treatment outside dedicated premises, for home visits, for example.
	The Government's assessment of the Bill's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights noted the concern that no provision is made in the Bill for a licence holder, who has had an application to vary their licence turned down, to be heard orally or to appeal against that decision. That may be contrary to the right provided by Article 6 of the convention to a fair hearing, and that will need to be considered by the committee. We have a number of concerns of a more technical nature, which the Department of Health will take up with the promoters.
	I shall now deal with the provisions relating to the registration of dealers in second-hand goods. Clauses 87 to 97 of the Bill are similar to other local legislation that requires the registration of second-hand traders, in particular the Kent County Council Act and the Medway Council Act 2001, known as the Kent Acts. I understand that the Home Office has concerns with Clause 90, largely due to the variance with other similar local legislation. The Bill is similar to local legislation in place in 12 local authorities. All of those require the registration of second-hand goods dealers, and most require notification of occasional sales. The majority of the legislation require traders to make records of certain transactions that take place outside their borough, which the clauses fail to do, and cover occasional sales and squat traders. That has been raised with the Bill's promoters.
	I understand that officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have raised concerns about the provisions set out in Clause 108, which would make it an offence to display restricted R18 rated videos and their packaging other than in a licensed sex shop. DCMS considers that the new offence is unnecessary, as such a display would already amount to an offence under Section 12 of the Video Recordings Act 1984. Under that section, it is an offence to supply or offer to supply an R18 video recording, other than in a licensed sex shop. In the department's view the meaning of "offer to supply" is wide and includes the display of such video recordings and their packaging.
	We are concerned that the proposal would seriously undermine the wide interpretation of "supply" and "offer to supply" by the courts, as it would amount to an acceptance by Parliament that the display of video recordings did not come within the meaning of "offer to supply", thus affecting the ability of trading standards officers to prosecute. We would also strongly question any change in the law which covered only London, as it is no longer the case that sex shops, licensed or not, are found only in central London. The Video Recordings Act applies right across the UK.
	Clause 109 deals with the change of use of premises to temporary sleeping accommodation. I understand that the promoters have in mind changes of use to short-term holiday accommodation. The clause makes provision for offences and the issue of enforcement notices by a borough council where the necessary permission for such a change of use has not been obtained. My department already considers that such a change to the boroughs' existing enforcement powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is unnecessary. We are considering the need to submit a report to the Select Committee. Boroughs already have powers to serve a planning contravention notice to establish the facts and see whether enforcement action should be taken. They also have powers under Section 196A(4)to enter any building used as a dwelling house to determine whether an enforcement notice should be issued, provided that they give 24 hours' notice to the occupier of the building.
	Regarding Clause 110, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that there is an overlap with the Charities Bill—indeed, there is, and the Home Office is the responsible department. Part 3 of the Charities Bill makes provision for the regulation of public charitable collections—"chugging", another word that we have heard this afternoon. The provisions in Clause 110 in some part duplicate the provisions of the Charities Bill and in other parts would not be compatible. So the Home Office is considering the need to submit a report to the Select Committee, opposing the clause.
	Clause 112 clearly arouses strong passions. All I would say is that this is a discrete matter and I hope that the Select Committee will carefully consider what has been said by the petitioners and the proposers. I am sure that that will happen.
	Clause 114 concerns the power to disturb human remains. As the noble Lord said, this is a very sensitive matter. The Government issued a consultation paper last year, Burial Law and Policy in the 21st Century, on the need for a sensitive and sustainable approach. It invited views on reforming and modernising burial law, including the case for making specific provision for the re-use of graves. We are now considering the results of that consultation exercise with the assistance of the Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group, which has a wide range of representatives from the burial industry and other organisations, such as faith and bereavement bodies. We hope and expect to be in a position to determine the way forward on this issue later this year. We will clarify our position on Clause 114 at that time.
	Clause 115 concerns the registration of mail forwarding businesses. The Department of Trade and Industry is concerned that the Bill does not take into account that introducing local regulations relating to a national issue will cause complications for those who regulate the industry and monitor activity and performance, and that to evade London regulation, all that a business would have to do is move outside the capital. Those concerns have been brought to the attention of the promoters and we await a response.
	Clauses 117 to 119 concern the disclosure of information. They would extend data sharing powers to include tax credits, child benefit and guardian's allowance, as well as housing and council tax benefit. This information is supplied to boroughs by the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs and members of the public. The Government's report on the compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights makes clear our concerns about the proportionality of using personal information gathered by those departments for, say, the collection of traffic penalty charges. Where personal data are shared between public authorities, Article 8 of the ECHR is engaged, which requires that such sharing is proportionate and necessary. The Government's view is that the promoters have not explained in their assessment how the clauses are proportionate and necessary and we do not agree that the clauses are compliant with the convention.
	I understand that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is also concerned that Clause 117 conflicts with its strict legal duty of confidentiality as established by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and will be considering the need to submit a report to the Select Committee, as will the Department for Work and Pensions.
	I am nearing the end, as noble Lords will appreciate. I understand that a proposal by Thames Water to reduce water pressure in London has led to the inclusion of Clause 120. This would require a water company to consult boroughs before it reduced pressure. I understand that boroughs have concerns about reduced pressure and the potential cost implications to them. We welcome the current dialogue between the Association of London Government and the relevant water company undertakers.
	Nevertheless, the Government cannot accept the clause as drafted because of its practical effect, which is to require at least daily consultation before lowering water pressure in their pipe networks. The clause is unworkable and as drafted we believe that it is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol on the protection of property.
	As the Government's assessment made clear, the promoters have not addressed how their proposals strike a fair balance between their objectives and the right of water suppliers to the "peaceful enjoyment" of their property. We are still in discussion with the proposers of the Bill and hope to seek a revised drafting of Clause 120 that accommodates our concerns.
	I am sorry to have spoken at some length. There are a large number of points of concern of which, within the convention of neutrality, it is my duty to inform the House. Other points may emerge as the Bill is further considered and discussed. Between now and the Bill going before the Select Committee, the promoters will have many opportunities to discuss our concerns and to resolve them in as constructive and as timely a way as possible. I hope that I have helped the House and the promoters of the Bill to understand our concerns.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in her list of provisions which conflict with other legislation, will she accept that in the case of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, this Bill was tabled well before that Bill was enacted. I would not like the Select Committee to think that the promoters had been so slap dash.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is a fair point. In pointing out the conflicts in the legislation, there was no moral judgment on the promoters of the Bill. Often there is a lack of synchronicity in government.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, no one would be more surprised than the Minister if I responded to all the points she has made. Her listing of the anxieties held by a number of government departments about the Bill will be extremely helpful to its promoters. She has performed a valuable service in putting them before the House.
	The Minister is right to say that the Bill will receive careful scrutiny by what is properly called a Select Committee on an Opposed Private Bill. Enough points have been raised today to ensure that the Select Committee will have its work cut out.
	I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly for the general expression of support from all parts of the House. The noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Redesdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith indicated general support for the Bill. It must be remembered that those who argue for more local involvement in such affairs should recognise that a Bill which is being promoted by the local councils in London is exactly an expression of that wish.
	The Minister said that some of these matters will be or should be in general legislation. At the beginning of the debate, I made the point that often London local authorities have led the way: they have produced private Bills, introduced powers and made them work, and then the Government have said that those powers should be applied nationally. That may happen in a number of these cases.
	I was perturbed by what the Minister said about the lack of consultation. If that is so, it is most unfortunate. In mitigation, on behalf of the promoters, they had considerable consultation with the Government Office for London. That office was informed about the proposals well ahead of the deposit of the Bill and a number of meetings were held. GOL provides a very useful conduit between the promoters and individual government departments. If the promoters are wrong in assuming that government departments were to be informed of the proposals through the Government Office for London, clearly account will need to be taken of that in future.
	But, I ask, what is the purpose of having a Government Office for London, which after all should be prepared to speak for or, at any rate, consult all the various departments involved? Listening to the Minister I had the impression that many of the departments have had to look at the Bill and work out their reaction to it. I believe that on both sides there needs to be considerable revisiting of that process of consultation. The Government Office for London has been headed by a number of very distinguished officials and civil servants over the years. If that is not exactly the kind of function that it should perform, we may need to look at it more carefully.
	The noble Baroness mentioned human rights. The promoters take that very seriously indeed. We have not yet had, as she said, a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and no doubt, in due course, that will emerge. There will be every opportunity to consider that in the Select Committee.
	A number of points have been made during the course of this Second Reading debate, which are of great value to the promoters and, no doubt, will be to the Select Committee. It would be supererogatory—I believe that is the right word—for me to attempt to comment on them all. However, a number have been made with some force and perhaps I may refer to them.
	First, I refer to the very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, backed by other noble Lords, about Clause 112, which deals with Lincoln's Inn Fields. I spent the first part of my legal career in chambers in Lincoln's Inn. It was an extremely undistinguished legal career, which I abandoned when I discovered I had more children than briefs. Every day, for two or three years, I went across Lincoln's Inn Fields and came to like it and value it greatly so I can speak with some knowledge of it.
	Clause 112 has the purpose of allowing Camden council to erect marquees and other temporary structures—I stress the word "temporary"—in the open space for the purpose of hosting events. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, expressed his anxieties about that with great eloquence. I recognise that if one moves into an area like Lincoln's Inn and Lincoln's Inn Fields, one will find a large number of extremely eloquent advocates for whatever cause they wish to pursue.
	There are strict limits on time, which will need to be considered. I clearly take the point made about the dangers of noise. A plan accompanies the Bill which shows that the part of the fields that can be used is a relatively small one. It is an area of hard-standing right in the middle of Lincoln's Inn Fields. There is no question of grass or flowerbeds being used.
	Noble Lords referred to the 1894 Act. What happened was that events began to be held in Lincoln's Inn Fields, sponsored by Camden council and no doubt its predecessor, in contravention of the old Act, which forbids the erection of temporary structures in the fields. Until that provision was drawn to its attention, I understand that the council had indeed been putting up marquees in the middle of Lincoln's Inn Fields for a number of successive years. Here my advice is perhaps rather different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart: I am told it had few complaints. It may be that the events concerned were relatively inoffensive. But clearly an issue of some substance has been raised this afternoon.
	I am not sure whether it would be right, as some noble Lords have suggested, to abandon the clause altogether. If something is of value to the local community, it does not seem to me to be right to abandon it altogether. No doubt that will be the subject of considerable debate in the Select Committee.
	I should like to pick up one or two of the other points that have been made, perhaps in the order in which they appear in the Bill rather than the order in which they were raised in the debate. There is the question of advertising in call boxes and call barring. It is an offence—the noble Baroness is right—under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to place such adverts. That has not proved very effective. What is proposed is that action should be taken by the local authorities to require telephone providers to bar calls to those numbers. That is being done by BT at the moment, as I said in my opening speech, and the effect has been that none of the people putting out the cards uses BT services. How that will affect mobile telephones is something on which I have not had advice, but clearly a number of important points have been raised. What may be perfectly feasible for land-line telephones may not be equally feasible for mobile phones, but that will need to be examined.
	The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made an important point about company directors. As the Minister said, the DTI has petitioned against Clauses 10 and 11. Directors can already be struck off if found guilty of an indictable offence; and the offence does not have to relate to the financial impropriety of the director. The clause is needed because of the minuscule fines that are imposed, sometimes on very substantial companies, for offences of repeated fly-posting. Such fines are treated simply as an occupational hazard and have no impact on what many people regard as a very offensive process of simply plastering local structures of one kind or another with posters.
	The promoters have had constructive discussions with the Outdoor Advertising Association. It represents firms that will be most affected by the clause. I think that if that association is satisfied with the provisions and with any amendments which may be put forward, then it is to be hoped that others may be prepared to follow. Fly-posting is a major disfigurement of cities and happens far too often in London. That is why we need to have the additional powers.
	One noble Lord mentioned Clause 20 with regard to the defacement of buildings and the removal of graffiti. For the very reason that the Minister has given, that clause will now be withdrawn as it is unnecessary—the issue is being dealt with in general legislation.
	On the question of litter from vehicles, I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I have at times protested; on one occasion picking up the litter and pushing it back through the window. I am not sure that I would want to do that too often, certainly not at my age. I would feel very vulnerable. In today's society I think that that would be a difficult thing to do, but to be able to take the number, report and find the keeper and make the keeper pay for the disposal of litter from that vehicle seems to me to be a much more effective weapon. It is extremely irritating and disturbing to city dwellers.
	There has been quite a lot of discussion about chewing gum. I share some of the anxiety expressed about whether simply preventing its sale in areas around heritage sites is likely to solve the problem. It is a common problem. Westminster City Council spends upwards of £400,000 a year on seeking to remove chewing gum from pavements. The clauses seek to discourage the build-up of too much chewing gum in one area by designating the areas where it may not be sold.
	I appreciate that many have petitioned against the clause, including Defra, whose representations we will have to consider in the Select Committee. It is a menace that ought to be dealt with. I have a rooted objection to chewing gum. I always say that one of the hazards of travelling on public transport is to find oneself sitting opposite somebody aggressively chewing gum with an open mouth. One wants to go up and hit him, but one does not—it is not safe. It is very unpleasant.
	On the number of people on licensing committees, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, wisely advised the promoters to look back at the 2003 Act. The problem is that in Westminster City Council, for example, there have been a huge number of applications for varying premises licences. With only 15 councillors to deal with them, they will be very hard pressed. When there is a change in licensing law the same sort of thing happens. It seems reasonable to remove the restriction that only 15 councillors may sit on a licensing committee.
	I understand the anxieties about water pressure which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, with his considerable experience in the industry, expressed eloquently. It may be that the existing provisions will be enough if they are worked properly. It is the experience of boroughs with high-rise flats that, too often, they are caught by surprise with a reduction in pressure and, despite what Ofwat and the legislation say about the obligation on water authorities to keep up the pressure, it does not happen. Local authorities feel that if they had more notice, they could take measures such as requiring the water authorities to put up standpipes and so on to deal with the problem.
	Noble Lords raised many other points, but there is other business to follow so I shall stop. The Bill has been put forward in very good faith by the 33 London boroughs, including the city council. As noble Lords pointed out, it addresses serious concerns that their electors have experienced. It is an expression of local government but it requires the consent of Parliament, hence the promotion of this Private Bill. I hope that we can give it a fair wind. I can assure all noble Lords that what has been said will be very carefully studied by the promoters and, I am sure, the Select Committee. I hope that we may speed the Bill upon its way.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Cyprus: Annan Plan

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the Annan plan referendum, they have met their obligation towards the restoration of full international human rights to the citizens of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
	My Lords, on 6 and 14 November 2002 I spoke in your Lordships' House on the issue of northern Cyprus and the injustice that Turkish Cypriots have endured since 1963. I spoke of the Greek Cypriot persecution of Turkish Cypriots before Turkey rescued them in 1974; of perverse and ongoing propaganda that turned aggressors into victims; and of the United Kingdom's shameful dereliction of its duty as guarantor under the 1960 treaty. I had hoped that we would have moved on.
	The House will know that in April 2004 two referendums were held in Cyprus, one in the Turkish-Cypriot north and the other in Greek-Cypriot south. In those referendums, the two peoples of Cyprus exercised their separate rights of self-determination. The plan was a compromise that, like all compromises, did not give either side everything that it wanted. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations Secretary-General endorsed it as a fair and reasonable basis for settlement. It was accepted by the Turkish Cypriots but rejected by the Greek Cypriots. I do not find their reasons for rejecting it convincing.
	The plan would have reduced, in phases, the number of Turkish and Greek troops to 650 and 950 respectively. Turkey could not have halted those reductions without wrecking its bid for membership of the European Union. The plan would have allowed a large number of Greek Cypriots to return to their homes in northern Cyprus and would have compensated the rest. There is, of course, a large number of Turkish Cypriot properties in the south that are still occupied by Greek Cypriots, but nobody seems to care about them.
	I have known Cyprus for many years. I am in no doubt about why the Greek Cypriot leaders campaigned against the United Nations plan. They simply do not wish to share power with the Turkish Cypriots, and they think that their unjustified status as the government of Cyprus gives them the power to do as they please. Their objective is to use the new influence that they have acquired in the European Union to get Turkish troops removed from Cyprus and to bring Turkish Cypriots once again under the Greek Cypriot domination from which they have already suffered so much. Put bluntly, they do not want Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus, except perhaps as cheap labour.
	The world is beginning to see the truth about the Greek Cypriots. Last week, the Islamic states welcomed the Foreign Minister of the Turkish Cypriot state to their conference in Yemen. They passed a resolution to open direct trade, transport and tourism links with northern Cyprus. Azerbaijan has taken the first step by declaring direct flights permissible and recognising passports issued by the Turkish Cypriot state.
	It is wrong that the Greek Cypriot regime was ever accepted as the government of Cyprus. They threw the Turkish Cypriots out of the government in 1963, and they have been well rewarded for their audacity. Their reliance on a so-called doctrine of necessity was ridiculous, as they created the necessity themselves. It has no substance after the referendum, if it ever had.
	The Greek Cypriot leadership says that it wants reconciliation with the Turkish Cypriots, but is there even a shred of evidence that it does? On the contrary, ever since 1963, the Greek Cypriots have held the Turkish Cypriots under economic embargo, in an attempt to force them to accept a settlement on Greek Cypriot terms. After the referendums last year, the international community made it clear that there was no justification for the embargo, but it continues. Indeed, it has got worse.
	In another place, the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that there was little evidence that Greek Cypriots had taken it on board that membership of the European Union involved obligations as well as privileges. Using their new-found privileges in the European Union, the Greek Cypriots have started to bring legal actions against people, including British citizens, who relied on laws in force in the north of Cyprus and who, in good faith, bought property there. I have a house in northern Cyprus, but I am not affected; mine has pre-1974 British title.
	I remind the House that the English courts decided as long ago as 1978 in the case of Hesperides Hotels v Muftizade that,
	"There is an effective administration in Northern Cyprus which has made laws governing the day to day lives of the people. According to these laws the people who have occupied these [properties] are not trespassers. They are not occupying them unlawfully and their conduct cannot be made the subject of a suit in England".
	These new legal claims are portrayed as actions brought by Greek Cypriot individuals, but it is in fact a co-ordinated campaign by the government in the south to cause damage to the Turkish Cypriot economy. Her Majesty's Government should tell the Greek Cypriot Government in unequivocal terms that their conduct is unacceptable and should stop. The property issue must be resolved by an overall political settlement.
	Similarly, the Greek Cypriots, in pursuit of the same political campaign, have persuaded Transport for London to deny the Turkish Cypriot tourist office the right to advertise. They have failed to lift this ban even though the Advertising Standards Authority ruled on 22 April that there is no justification for it.
	The ASA said:
	"the fact that some people were offended that North Cyprus was being advertised as a holiday destination does not provide sufficient grounds for objecting to a marketing communication for it. The ASA Council considers that the advertisements were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, or undue distress, and were unlikely to materially mislead".
	When this issue first arose, I wrote to Mayor Livingstone but, so far, have received no substantive reply. I pointed out that many Turkish Cypriots are offended by adverts for holidays in the south, but they are not banned.
	This advertising ban also contravenes UK Government policy. On 3 May the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to Transport for London indicating that international non-recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not mean that the UK Government refrain from dealing with Turkish Cypriots. It stated:
	"On the contrary we believe that helping the Turkish Cypriots to come out of isolation, and to raise their standards towards EU norms, will make a future settlement in Cyprus more likely".
	But how can Turkish Cypriots do that if Transport for London, a British public authority, is helping the Greek Cypriots to wreck the Turkish Cypriot tourist industry?
	To make matters worse, Transport for London is spending thousands of pounds of public money defending a court action to have the ban removed. I think that we would all like to know how much Transport for London has spent on the case.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee in another place said that undertakings given to the Turkish Cypriots must be honoured, and that the UK Government must do more to turn their words into action by working to remove obstacles to direct trade with and travel to northern Cyprus. They called on the Government to clarify whether they have the power to authorise direct flights between the UK and northern Cyprus.
	I have myself asked for clarification but have received only vague and generalised replies from Ministers. From this I conclude that Her Majesty's Government have the power, but not the courage, to meet that obligation.
	I hope that I have demonstrated the utter injustice of Turkish Cypriots continuing to face an embargo after they accepted the United Nations plan, while the rejectionist Mr Papadopoulos, a former terrorist, and his Greek Cypriot Government, get all the benefits. Of course the Greek Cypriots can reject the United Nations plan, but they should not expect us to help them persecute the Turkish Cypriots a moment longer.
	In conclusion, while we deplore regimes like Mugabe's which Her Majesty's Government are powerless to call to account, it is surely a national disgrace that, when Her Majesty's Government could do the right thing by the people of the peaceful, democratic Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, all they can do is prevaricate.
	Turkish Cypriots still do not have basic international human rights to trade, to travel and to have the same access to educational opportunity here and within the rest of the European Union as Greek Cypriots.
	I call on Her Majesty's Government to stop their shameful procrastination and immediately put those matters right. Greek Cypriots do not have a veto on British foreign policy.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, for initiating this debate and giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I am afraid though that I disagree with, I think, everything he said. I certainly do not share his view about the origins of the present impasse in Cyprus.
	I first visited Cyprus early in 1975, less than six months after the attempted Greek coup d'état and the subsequent Turkish invasion. I vividly remember the sight of the burnt out cars on the driveway to the presidential palace in Nicosia and the bullet holes on the building. But never in my most pessimistic moments would I have believed that the island would still be divided 31 years later. Then, it always seemed more likely that a solution would be found to the Cyprus question than, for example, that the Berlin Wall would come down or that apartheid would be replaced by majority rule in South Africa.
	Less surprising is the fact that the conspiracy theorists are now at work on who was responsible for the tragedy of 1974. We may know one day how much Henry Kissinger encouraged a Turkish invasion and how seriously the British government contemplated sending 12,000 troops to help restore President Makarios.
	But none of that is really relevant to resolving the issues of today. Like many, I hoped that a combination of Cyprus's accession to the EU and the attempts by Kofi Annan to broker an agreement between all parties would have led to a settlement which would have reunited the island. But as we know, 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots last year voted "No" in a referendum on the UN plan. There is a very strong feeling on the island that in producing a plan which he could sell to the Turkish Cypriots, Mr Annan lost sight of the need to carry the Greek Cypriot majority with him.
	I have read the account of the briefing given by Sir Kieran Prendergast to the Security Council on 22 June, following his recent visits to Cyprus, Greece and Turkey to discuss the future of the Secretary-General's mission of good offices in Cyprus. It is interesting that he says in his statement,
	"the highest priority concerns which led Greek Cypriots to vote the way they did would most certainly have to be addressed in any future process based on the United Nations plan—and the Greek Cypriot electorate must have confidence that that would be borne in mind in a renewed process".
	Given the involvement of western intelligence in this whole matter, particularly in the United States, it is a pity that the mood in Cyprus was not better judged before the referendum. It would have helped, for example, if Turkey had been made to recognise the Republic of Cyprus as an essential element in that process.
	As recently as last Wednesday, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, the Finnish representative Olli Rehn, said that if the negotiations with Turkey over EU membership were to make progress, it has to normalise bilateral relations with all EU member states, including opening Turkey's ports and airports to Cyprus.
	Fundamental to all this are the human rights issues, particularly the Loizidou case and the subsequent outcome of the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 2001. The court's opinion was that Turkey has violated the human rights of Greek Cypriots residing in the government-controlled area of the republic, including the rights of property, the right to a home, the right to life and the right to personal freedoms of the Greek Cypriot missing persons.
	The court ruled that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus are the sole legitimate government of the country, that the "TRNC" is not a state under international law and is therefore illegal, that the local administration in Northern Cyprus survives by virtue of Turkish military support, that Turkey, which has,
	"effective overall control over Northern Cyprus",
	is responsible for securing all human rights under the conventions and protocols she has ratified, and that violations of such rights by her own soldiers or officials, or by the local administration, are imputable to her.
	Of course we have to remember that the population of northern Cyprus is very different today from what it was before the Turks invaded in 1974. Then there were about 118,000 Turkish Cypriots. By 2001 that figure had fallen to 87,600 and it is likely to have fallen further since. But the gaps have been more than made up by settlers from mainland Turkey, reckoned to total 160,000, and 35,000 Turkish troops. Given these facts, it is hard to see what obligations Her Majesty's Government have to restore human rights to the citizens of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
	But as the European Court has ruled, there are some very serious human rights issues in Cyprus, though they are rather different from those described by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I believe that our Government should strengthen their warnings to British citizens who are contemplating the buying of property in the Turkish-occupied part of the island. The outcome of the European Court cases should leave no one in any doubt that Greek Cypriots who lost their property as a consequence of the Turkish invasion are entitled to compensation if they can prove their title. Just last Monday, the Guardian newspaper reported the case of Mr and Mrs Orams from East Sussex, who lost their appeal to a court order to demolish their villa situated a few miles west of Kyrenia, to pay rent for the time they lived there, and to return the plot to Mr Meletis Apostolides, who was able to produce the title deeds some 30 years after he fled from the north of Cyprus, as the Turks invaded.
	With Cyprus now in the European Union, the case could be transferred to a British court and this unfortunate British couple could then find themselves losing their home in Hove, Sussex, if they have not by then complied with the court order. The newspaper also reported that there are,
	"hundreds of other Greek Cypriots who have filed petitions with local courts to reclaim properties".
	This situation will undoubtedly get worse if the present property boom in northern Cyprus continues, particularly if the developers are so unconcerned about the ownership of the land they are selling.
	The Turkish Cypriot daily, Yeni Duzen, reported on 26 May this year that a building contractor called Kutsal Tokatlioglu, who is wanted by Interpol and has had a European arrest warrant issued against him, is building villas in the occupied Klepini village and has no intention of stopping. I was not surprised to read in the Cyprus Mail of 8 June that Kofi Annan is much exercised by the rise in property claims. I am sure that we all are. But it is very hard to argue with the view of the Cyprus Government that it is,
	"the right of every individual to claim his own property. It is safeguarded by international conventions".
	These property issues are of course complicated by the fact that a number of the developers who are flogging properties to unsuspecting British residents are British criminals who are holed up in Turkish-occupied Cyprus and benefiting from the absence of extradition arrangements. Two years ago the Economist published an article saying that there was to be more co-operation between the British and Turkish Cypriot police forces over extradition. When she replies, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that these improvements have taken place.
	For example, what has happened to Mr Stanley Rankin, wanted on money-laundering charges and who was charged with being in possession of three million forged French francs, but ran to Northern Cyprus before he could face trial, and Mr Garry Robb, charged with conspiracy to supply drugs? I understand that Mr Robb is one of the owners of AGA Development Limited, which the BBC described in April as engaged in the biggest building project in the north, an entire village at Arapkoy, 10 miles east of Kyrenia between the coast and the mountains.
	And what, indeed, of Asil Nadir, of Polly Peck fame, who was reported in the Guardian on 3 September 2003 as being "ready to give himself up" and to return from Northern Cyprus to face the music on charges alleging theft of £34 million? What has happened to him? Why has he not come back?
	But back to the main political issue—I conclude with this—what should happen now? Everyone accepts—and Sir Kieran Prendergast said this again the other day—that the persistence of the status quo on the island is unacceptable. The solution surely lies in a bizonal, bicommunal federation which reunifies the country socially, economically and politically. Neither community should be in a position to impose its will on the other. Those are the words of the president of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassas Papadopoulos, speaking at a trade fair as recently as 19 May.
	There will be a role for the United Nations but, to quote Kieran Prendergast again:
	"Outsiders can help, but it is the parties who must summon the vision, courage and political will needed to make a settlement, with all that implies by way of compromise. Leaders have to lead, not just follow their supporters".

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, as the two previous speakers have reminded us, it is well over a year now since the Turkish Cypriots voted by a substantial majority to accept the Annan plan and the Greek Cypriots by an even greater majority voted to reject it. In the immediate aftermath of those two votes—and thus also well over a year ago—the European Union committed itself to bringing the Turkish Cypriots closer to the Union by means of aid and trade measures.
	It is timely, therefore, for the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, to have provided the House with an opportunity, through this Unstarred Question, to take stock of where matters stand in respect of fulfilling that commitment, even if his speech did bear a passing resemblance to those history lessons I used to receive from Mr Denktash, sitting on his sofa. He is now, of course, enjoying a well-earned retirement.
	It is important to recall that that commitment by the European Union was entered into by all 25 members of the enlarged European Union—that is to say, by the government of Cyprus too—because, although the decision itself was taken just before actual enlargement took place, it was during a period when the candidate countries already participated in EU decision taking and when they were fully bound by any such decisions.
	So far as I am aware—the Minister will enlighten us—there is not much, if anything, to show so far as fulfilling that EU commitment is concerned. Has any EU aid been committed, let alone disbursed, to the north? Has trade between the north and the EU been facilitated? Have any of the obstacles to direct communications between the north and the member states of the Union been eased or removed? Above all, has the narrowing of that yawning gap between the prosperity of the Turkish Cypriots and that of their Greek Cypriot neighbours in the south—which was of course the basic objective of the commitment given by the European Union—been advanced in any way? I fear that the answer to all of those questions is "No". There has been a sorry tale of obfuscation and obstruction in Brussels, with the government of Cyprus using the requirement for unanimity on the measures needed to implement the commitment to block every effort to honour it.
	It is argued by some tortuous form of logic that implementing the EU's commitment would somehow reduce the incentive to the Turkish Cypriots to come to a settlement of the Cyprus problem, and yet during the period in question the Turkish Cypriots have twice voted, in parliamentary and presidential elections, for candidates firmly committed to the early implementation of the UN settlement plan, which was endorsed by the European Union, and they have rejected candidates who wished to reverse that support.
	It is reasonable, therefore, to ask what the incoming British presidency of the EU intends to do about bringing an end to this impasse. Would it not make sense to sever the link between the aid and the trade measures so that European Union aid funds could rapidly be put to use to the benefit of the Turkish Cypriots? Is it not possible following Turkey's acceptance of the protocol extending the provisions of its customs union with the EU to the new member states, including Cyprus, to find some imaginative way of freeing up trade all round—between Turkey and Cyprus, between the north and the European Union, and across the Green Line in Cyprus between the two parts of the island? Is it really impossible to find some way of establishing direct communications links between EU member states and the north without in any way altering or undermining the legitimate refusal of EU member states to recognise the TRNC as such? Surely in other parts of the world, such direct communications links do exist without recognition of the status of disputed territories.
	In addition to these questions, I have a specific further one about the recruitment of Cypriots to the staff of the various European Union institutions—the Commission, the Council Secretariat, and so on. Presumably this recruitment has been in full swing since Cyprus joined the European Union last May. Can the Minister say what proportion of the Cypriots who have been so recruited are of Greek-Cypriot origin and what of Turkish-Cypriot origin? Can she, moreover, confirm that any discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin between different Cypriot candidates would be illegal under European Union law and regulations? And can she give an assurance that no such discrimination has been, or is, taking place?
	All these matters are something of a temporary sideshow in comparison with the desirability, at some stage, of resuming progress towards a negotiated settlement on the basis of the Annan plan, which would permit a reunited, bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus to take its place within the European Union. Can the Minister say whether the government of Cyprus are still declining to give to the United Nations any indication of the priority points in the Annan plan which would need adjustment before they could support it? Is there any prospect of that unwillingness being overcome? And until it is, what point would there be in even contemplating a resumption of a negotiating process which would be only too likely to lead to a further setback to any hope of a settlement?
	As so often in the case of Cyprus, it is all too easy to fall prey to pessimism, to conclude that these matters are simply too complex and sensitive to hope for progress. I suggest that that would be a mistake. The European Union committed itself to the Turkish Cypriots last April, and it has so far been prevented from delivering on that commitment. This is hardly the moment in the European Union's development when it can afford to be seen to renege on its obligations.
	Moreover, in October, with the opening of negotiations over Turkey's accession to the European Union, a new door will be opened to the eventual settlement of the Cyprus problem. It is surely as difficult to envisage Turkey entering the European Union with the Cyprus problem unresolved as it is to envisage the Cyprus problem being resolved if the door to Turkish membership is slammed in its face. There is a great deal at stake in the months ahead, and I hope that the Minister will be able to speak of the opportunities as well as the difficulties and to send a message of encouragement to the Turkish Cypriots to stick with the strategic decision they have taken in the past two years to work for a settlement based on the Annan plan and to turn their backs on the rejectionist policies of their previous leadership.
	In conclusion, perhaps I may ask whether it is the intention to discuss all these matters with the president of Cyprus when he visits London later this month. That visit should surely provide an opportunity to dissipate the rather sour mood which has fallen on this country's relations with Cyprus in the past year.
	I was very struck, when I visited the island in February for a Wilton Park conference on the future of Cyprus, how extraordinarily beleaguered and defensive the mood had become. Even participation in a Wilton Park conference was seen by the government of Cyprus as a sign of surrender. But if progress is to be made towards settling the Cyprus problem, it is hard to see that happening if Britain and the government of Cyprus are not talking frankly and in a spirit of co-operation to each other and working together to move forward.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, had to say. It gave us a lot of food for thought.
	I was rather surprised that in his brief historical summary, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, failed to mention that the Greek Cypriots started to flout the provisions of the Zurich treaties almost before the ink was dry on the documents. The Turkish Government were quite extraordinarily restrained in failing to intervene to protect their fellow Turks until 1974, with the brief exception of a small air raid upon Greek irregulars attacking Turkish villages in north-western Cyprus in January 1964, if I remember rightly.
	In listing this week's parliamentary debates, last week's Westminster and Whitehall World, a quasi-official publication after all, summarised this debate as being,
	"on human rights in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus",
	thereby suggesting to the uninitiated that it would be all about the Turkish Cypriot Government's repression of their own people. I have no doubt that that is nothing but an uncharacteristic slip-up by that journal's editorial department, but it epitomises just how the dice always seem to be loaded against the Turkish Cypriots in the great propaganda war. Some nations, races, religions and groupings are inherently better at PR than others and more able to switch on the charm at will, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and his fellow Unionists know to their cost.
	I thank the noble Lord for giving us the chance to debate the appallingly unfair treatment of Turkish Cypriots, who had shown their good faith and willingness to compromise. A great deal of hard work and ingenuity went into the Annan plan, which surely provided for the best medium-term settlement that was realistically available. It is the greatest pity that the Greek Cypriots rejected it and did so by an extremely wide margin.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, the reason for the rejection was ostensibly the slowness of withdrawal of Turkish troops for which the plan provided. I am not convinced. The unwise acceptance of Greek Cyprus into the EU before a settlement has made Greek Cypriots feel overconfident and almost invulnerable. They feel that they hold all the cards.
	Moreover, from private conversations that my acquaintances have had with Greek Cypriots, it seems clear that most of them—not all, but most—regard Turkish Cypriots in the same way as the British tended to regard the Irish in the last half of the nineteenth century and the earlier years of the twentieth: either as obstreperous troublemakers or as thick peasants who are totally devoid of any managerial or entrepreneurial abilities. I know that the latter is complete rubbish, but, nevertheless, it is clearly a widely held perception in the south, which fears having to subsidise the north in the event of a settlement: hence the referendum vote.
	There are some who say "tough", that somehow Turkish Cypriots will have to live with it and that realpolitik dictates that we ought to wash our hands of the matter. I suggest that this is an extremely dangerous attitude. Cyprus is located in a most volatile part of the world. The eastern tip of the Karpas peninsula is less than 60 miles from the Syrian coast. Most of northern Cyprus is less than 50 miles from the Turkish coast. The island is also near to Lebanon and quite near to Israel, Egypt and Greece in the form of Rhodes and Crete. There has been a great deal of turmoil and bloodshed in the region during the past 150 years, and it is not in anyone's interest to add to it if it can possibly be avoided.
	Some will say that I am being alarmist and will contend that the British influence during almost 130 years, both before and after independence, has made Turkish Cypriots less and less like the mainland Turks, not only in superficial matters such as driving on the left, but also in becoming both more secular and less militant, and therefore more ready to give in eventually to Greek Cypriots and accept gratefully whatever crumbs fall from the Greek Cypriot table. That seems most unlikely, but I confess that I am not really in a position to be certain. My brother served in the Army in Cyprus, and a good friend worked there for a great many years and became very fluent in Greek. They both briefed me very thoroughly, but I never managed to go there myself until 1980.
	I went to both sides of the green line; and had a meeting with Mr Denktash, who was then governing his realm from a Nissen hut in north Nicosia, such were the austerities imposed on the Turkish areas of the island by years and years of the Greek blockade. And I spent a most fruitful day with the most impressive foreign secretary of those days. I have been back a number of times since, both to the north and to the south—I have crossed the border at both authorised and, once or twice, unauthorised crossing points. But I confess that I have not stayed there for long periods, so I still do not know the people of the island well enough to deduce what they are really thinking at heart as distinct from what they politely reply to an inquisitive stranger. So I cannot be sure whether the assumption that Turkish Cypriots will reluctantly accept the present situation is correct or not. However, I do understand the Turks on the mainland a good deal better.
	As I might have mentioned in an earlier debate, I first went to Turkey 52 years ago, in 1953, as a student backpacker—as it would now be described, although not so described in those days. It was the 500th anniversary of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman armies, and almost every shop and kiosk was displaying huge maps of the Ottoman empire at its greatest power and extent, between roughly 1550 and 1685. They were selling like hot cakes. There was clearly a subliminal—and indeed an overt—yearning for the days of empire and glory.
	Superficially, Istanbul was very cosmopolitan then, with a great many Greeks, White Russians and French-speaking Levantines. As a young Western European—and I must heavily emphasise the "Western"—I was treated with enormous warmth and hospitality, more often than not by total strangers. Nevertheless, I could sense a certain edginess and tension in the air, so when the anti-Greek pogroms broke out two years later, I was shocked but not entirely surprised. The pogroms resulted in enormous destruction, arson and looting on a massive scale, and the death of 30 Greeks. I have been back a great many times since, covering much of the western two-thirds of the country, and although I am always struck by the honesty, kindness and essential decency of the people, have remained conscious of the very strong nationalism bubbling away beneath the surface, which can manifest itself strongly under stress.
	Some may argue that I am dwelling too much on the past, and that the Turks have changed and become almost like Western Europeans. It is true that rising prosperity makes people more relaxed and benign and more reluctant to get into a conflict that might jeopardise the comforts so recently acquired. It is true, too, that young Turkish males do their compulsory national service with greater reluctance than in the past. Appeals to patriotism no longer carry the weight that they once did. Yet there is a certain steel below the surface, which people who go on delegations to Istanbul and who meet only well-travelled businessmen, academics, artists and so on, may not notice.
	One October day in Istanbul a few years ago, I was stuck in a dreary hotel room with the rain cascading down—there must have been about four or five inches that day—with nothing to do but watch the Independence Day celebrations on television. The word celebration implies a certain joyousness and happy smiles, but there were no happy smiles at all on that day. After a display of military might, we went on to robust men dressed in white tie and tails and almost as robust women in long evening dresses, belting out patriotic songs with fierce scowls on their faces. It made the May Day parades in Moscow in the Communist era look rather effete in comparison. I do not believe that the Turks are anything near turning into replicas of 20th century Swedes; they are nearer perhaps to 17th century Swedes, whose armies inspired almost as much fear as the Ottoman armies.
	The serious point that I am trying to make is that if Turkish membership of the EU looks like being rejected—and at the same time, heaven forbid, countries such as Ukraine, Serbia and Moldova are allowed in—Turkey will feel deeply humiliated and there will be hell to pay. It is no matter that EU membership may not on balance be good for Turkey, as I suspect and have suggested. The humiliation that they would feel after making such enormous efforts in vain would cause a resurgence of the militant nationalism that lies beneath the surface. The obvious outlet for such militant nationalism is bound to be Cyprus, if their fellow Turks are still being treated as second-class citizens on that island. So it is in the interests of the Greek Cypriot Government to persuade their electorate to change its mind, and to do so rapidly.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House will agree wholeheartedly with the final sensible words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He followed three speeches that also displayed great wisdom.
	There was a hint in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis—to whom I add my thanks for launching this interesting debate—had been slightly more jarring and partisan in his remarks than was the case with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. However, one can understand that in many ways; the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is quite rightly concerned with the future development of proper international human rights for the people living in northern Cyprus, whatever the final political settlement is.
	One can compare the long agonies of the Israel/Palestine dispute with the dispute between Turkey and Turkish northern Cyprus and the official republic in the south of the island. Many painful and pessimistic suggestions have been put forward regarding which is the worse of those disputes and which stands the greatest chance of being solved in the near future. There are enormous differences as regards those two disputes and therefore I shall not draw a prolonged comparison between them. However, the United States has foolishly and unwisely imposed its own vetoes far too many times on the sensible resolutions of the UN Security Council. For understandable reasons the United States built up Israel into an unbeatable military power in the Middle East, with nuclear weapons, but then did not insist as a quid pro quo that Israel should negotiate a proper, longed for peace with the Palestinians. The United States insisted on taking leadership in that complex matter.
	Surely there are similarities between the position of Israel and that of the republic in the south of Cyprus. All the support that that republic has been given by so many people should surely impose a significant obligation on it to do that which is right. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, inferred, the republic should show leadership within the European Union framework rather than the negative attitude that is sometimes shown in various discussions on the EU's very commendable but so far frustrated attempts to offer means to reduce isolation in the north.
	An increasing number of disturbing property disputes are now occurring. They are fomented by all sorts of forces although in many cases we are not sure who they are. The property boom in the north was fuelled by the panic in the press on both sides of the dividing line that a settlement would not be reached for a long time and therefore people might as well get on with taking property purchasing decisions. Foreign Office advice has been given regularly with regard to property transactions in Cyprus. The Foreign Office advised after 1974 that where authentic transactions had occurred involving legitimate and genuine owners there should not be a problem. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to his own experience in that regard. However, it is crazy for people to fall for glossy estate agents' brochures and purchase properties in the north without proper title. That situation is even affecting commercial businesses such as the illustrious Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, which is involved in a dispute regarding its branch in Kyrenia. That branch has been subject to a notional rent for many years but suddenly a dispute has arisen in that regard. The advice of the Foreign Office—namely, caveat emptor—is right but it clashes with basic human rights. There must be ingenious ways of trying to marry up the two matters.
	The attempt to revive talks on reunification under the UN framework led by Sir Kieran Prendergast has already been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was the British Special Representative in Cyprus for a while. He exhibited heroic patience in that role, which he did not mention today. We thank him for the work that he did in trying to reach a settlement. We were all confounded, disappointed and amazed by the results of the twin referenda last year. The disappointment felt in this country and elsewhere regarding the result in the official republic was enormous.
	In Greece as well, many Greeks were upset about it. For the first time, with the removal at long last of the rather heavy and oppressive hand of "Uncle" Denktash—a blessed retirement, as has been said—there was suddenly much more freedom in the north. I noticed on my visits that the younger population there is not at all imbued with the old thoughts of isolation, separation and, indeed, domination by Turkey itself and the excessive presence of Turkish military force. Those people wanted to get together with the south.
	All those were great opportunities, but then we had the disappointment of the southern result. I do not intend to be discourteous to President Papadopoulos or to his government; he is a very distinguished man. However, in this country, there is still enormous disappointment on the matter. We look to the government of the Republic of Cyprus to bring forward new proposals to show that they are serious about reaching out to their confreres—their brothers and sisters—in the north in all the ways in which it can be done. There have been human contacts on a larger scale than before; that has to be acknowledged. Many people in the republic want their own government to act in that way. If we have more and more nationalism and confrontation on both sides, things will not be successful at all.
	The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons was itself critical, more so than the Government's reply, although the Government mainly disagreed with what the committee said in paragraph 2, I think. I quote deliberately from the report, because it has to be a warning to the republic that it now has the obligations from EU membership to act responsibly, as an EU member state has to do under the international codes drawn up within and across the frontiers by the European Union's instruments of legal co-operation. Paragraph 2 states:
	"We conclude that there is as yet little evidence that the Republic of Cyprus has fully taken on board that its membership of the EU involves obligations, as well as opportunities. We recommend that the Government work on a bilateral level, and with its European partners"—
	we are beginning our own presidency of the Union—
	"to encourage Cyprus to adapt to European Union values and methods of working".
	That is regarded as unfair comment by some, including the Government in their reply, but elsewhere the Government very much support the suggestions in that excellent report.
	This is an opportunity. Britain has a significant role to play. We are often inhibited. We have made some sensible suggestions such as giving up more than half of the sovereign base areas, if that comes out in the context of an international agreement. There are many other suggestions that we can make. We should not be too shy, because rational and moderate members of the population on both sides of the green line would like us to act, as would Greece and Turkey. People no longer want Turkey's putative future entry to the Community to be seriously affected by the dispute. The Cypriots on both sides of the divide must recognise that.
	I need to refer rapidly to a number of other things, because our party is very keen to endorse any efforts in this House, in the other place, and by the United Kingdom Government at the start of the presidency to get the beginnings of a solution. We support the Annan plan and Mr Prendergast. Direct flights to the north need to be considered; perhaps the Minister will have time to refer to that. The demilitarisation steps that have been regularly enunciated as sensible proposals should be returned to as a strong thematic input into a future settlement. Also important is the return of Turkish settlers and soldiers. I believe that I am right in saying—I am happy to be corrected—that many of those settlers came to the northern republic not on a permanent basis, but on a temporary basis to see what it was like. That reality has to be taken into account.
	My final comment is on the awful question of the trafficking of women in Cyprus. That too needs government attention here and in the republic. We urgently need the views of people in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which remains an illegal republic not sanctioned at all by any international agreements, as at least two noble Lords mentioned with emphasis. Turkey must recognise that.
	With all those difficult elements coming together, we have to be optimistic in the future. Is it limited optimism, the classic definition of which is a 95 year-old man who gets married for the fifth time and buys a new house near a school, or is it stronger optimism? It has to be stronger, because the future welfare of that part of the European Union depends on the two entities coming together in future.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, on securing this debate. It has been a most interesting and informed discussion, and one that I feel is apposite given the new role of the UK as president of the EU, and also in the light of the recent news that on 30 June the Government of Azerbaijan said that they would start accepting Turkish Cypriot passports, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, thus becoming only the second country to give a degree of recognition to the enclave in northern Cyprus. That might suggest that certain international attitudes towards the TRNC are changing, and further begs the question as to the political reality and the future of the Turkish Cypriots.
	The debate also takes place 15 months after the Annan plan referendum and the accession of Cyprus into the EU, and during a vital stage in Turkey's quest for EU membership. With the disappointing rejection of the Annan plan, and with Cyprus now an established EU member, Her Majesty's Government have had a significant amount of time to reflect and to move towards supporting a balanced, democratic settlement to the division of the island.
	Now that the dust has settled on Cyprus's accession to the EU and the Annan plan rebuff has been consigned to yesteryear, we are most eager to see the next steps initiated to help resolve the conflict. Those steps should work towards an outcome in which Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Greece and Turkey are all satisfied. With our historical ties with Cyprus, our position as one of the three guarantors of the republic, and our military bases on the island, we have a particular obligation to ensure that we help the people of Cyprus to resolve their dispute. The UK's role in the matter is further enhanced given that we took over the presidency of the EU at the end of last week.
	I join other noble Lords in asking Her Majesty's Government what steps this country and the EU have taken since May 2004. We all look forward to seeing a solution to suit all, be it a bizonal and bicommunal structure or otherwise. It is important to cement a shared sense of purpose on the island. Such a goal, as we have already seen, has been far from simple to achieve. With human rights issues still burdening the condition of the northern enclave, that goal will be harder to achieve.
	Since I last spoke on the issue some two and a half years ago, on a similarly directed Question from the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, it would appear that little has been done to allay the concerns over the treatment of the Turkish Cypriots. In 2002, I drew attention to the fact that Turkish Cypriots are isolated because the TRNC is recognised only by Turkey. Turkish Cypriots cannot take part in international events or be members of global organisations. It has been argued by numerous human rights observers that Turkish Cypriots are being denied the right to security of life and property; the right to freedom of movement and settlement; the rights to education, freedom of communication and correspondence; and political, economic and social rights. What intentions do the Government have to settle those issues? Are steps being taken to help improve living conditions in the TRNC? Freedom of movement and the rights of property should be central restoration obligations for Her Majesty's Government to encourage.
	The disenfranchisement is exacerbated by the poor economic circumstances within northern Cyprus. Economic embargos still plague the country. EU laws and benefits apply only to Greek Cypriots. Despite the positive steps taken by the Turkish Cypriots regarding the Annan plan, the EU has yet to lift trade restrictions. Until recently, Turkey was the only available market for produce from the TRNC. A number of countries ended their economic embargoes of northern Cyprus when the Turkish community declared its support for the Annan plan. Will Her Majesty's Government continue to impose embargoes on the Turkish Cypriots?
	I understand that last year the EU had pledged to release some £170 million to TRNC to help to end its economic isolation and to allow development to take place to raise living standards and improve the economy. But that financial injection was dependent upon a settlement being reached. On 1 February this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, explained in a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that,
	"the European Commission drew up proposals for two regulations on financial aid and direct trade to help"
	achieve an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. She stated:
	"The Government support these proposals. It has not been possible to agree these regulations as yet, but we support the presidency in its efforts to obtain agreement on this package as soon as possible. Direct flights to the north of Cyprus would of course contribute to ending this isolation. This is an immensely complex area and we are examining the issue with our lawyers".—[Official Report, 1/2/05; cols. WA 29–30.]
	Now that we hold the presidency of the Council, can the Minister say whether there have been any developments concerning that financial package and whether Her Majesty's Government will take further steps to aid TRNC's economic prospects and growth, and end its isolation?
	Freedom of movement between both parts of the state and the rights of property are central human rights issues. On top of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said in the debate in November 2002, the TRNC has been,
	"effectively denied their right to engage in political, economic, social, cultural and sporting contacts with the rest of the world".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 801.]
	We must play our part in restructuring talks and encouraging a settlement to end the isolation of the TRNC and ensure that both Cypriot communities can make the most of their EU membership. I look forward to hearing what plans the Government have to help rectify this disturbing and divisive problem within the EU.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for raising this important subject at the outset of our presidency of the European Union. The debate is also timely, in view of the forthcoming visit of the President of Cyprus and I am sure, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that many of the issues that have been raised today will be matters for discussion with the president during his visit. I shall do my utmost to respond to all the questions that have been raised, but I shall reply in writing to any that remain unanswered.
	The Government have always worked hard to foster a Cyprus settlement which is acceptable to the parties—primarily through our support for the UN Secretary-General's good offices. The accession of Cyprus to the European Union makes us feel our responsibilities even more acutely. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who was special representative for Cyprus from 1996 to 2003. His appointment was a sign of the Government's commitment to a solution during the critical phase leading up to EU accession.
	Ministers and officials—not to mention both Chambers of Parliament—continue to devote much attention to the issue, and rightly so. Although there have been no sustained hostilities on the island for decades, the legacies of conflict remain in the missing persons, in those dispossessed of their property and economic, political or other human rights, and in the presence of large numbers of troops and equipment on both sides of the island. The Government believe that the status quo is unacceptable. I reaffirm that our chief aim on Cyprus is a just, viable and lasting Cyprus settlement, brokered under UN auspices, for the benefit of all Cypriots.
	As prominent advocates of enlargement, we argued strongly for Cyprus's accession, along with the other nine new member states. As well as being desirable in itself, we believed that Cyprus's accession presented Cypriots with a unique opportunity to heal their island and to take a "United Cyprus Republic" into the EU. It was clearly a matter of deep regret that a Cyprus settlement eluded the parties at Copenhagen in 2002 and then in The Hague in 2003. Since accession, in practice only Greek Cypriots have been able to enjoy full participation in the EU.
	Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is right to raise the question of the rights of Turkish Cypriots. They, too, are citizens of the European Union and have shown that they wish to play a full part in it, not least by their overwhelming support for the UN's settlement proposals last year.
	We do not and will not recognise the self-styled "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". In any case, the terms of the treaty of Cyprus's accession to the EU make it legally impossible. In addition, UN resolutions, some sponsored by the UK, prohibit this. And yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, the EU and the international community at large needs to embrace the Turkish Cypriots. This is not just a UK position.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, discrimination against Turkish Cypriots in applying for jobs in the institutions of the EU would be illegal. But, sadly, far too few Turkish Cypriots are employed as yet in the EU institutions. To the best of our knowledge, one Turkish Cypriot is currently employed in the Cabinet of Commissioner Kyprianou and there may be a number of Turkish Cypriot stagiaires. Turkish Cypriots applying to work at the Commission face additional difficulties due to the fact that Turkish is not a recognised Community language and applicants must therefore sit examinations in two non-native languages. That is difficult for many people.
	The EU foreign ministers expressed their determination last April to,
	"put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, and to facilitate the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community".
	The UN Secretary-General echoes their call on 28 May last year in his report on his Mission of Good Offices.
	The Commission responded by producing a package of two draft regulations, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Astor; namely, the well-known financial aid and direct trade regulations. Let me remind noble Lords why the international community expressed these views.
	On a divided island where GDP per capita of the north is a bare third of the south, it is not realistic to expect that this discrepancy has no bearing on the political problem. In the south, where last year's referendum was lost, we should reassure Greek Cypriots that reunification will not saddle their economy with a development deficit in the north; that a settlement will not be "at their expense".
	We must also recognise the historic change that Turkish Cypriot politics has undergone in recent years, turning its back on the days when it put status before a settlement and contributed so much to the Cypriot deadlock. Turkish Cypriots, first on the streets and more recently at the ballot box, have given a clear message: "We want a reunited Cyprus within the EU". But the more that Turkish Cypriots are left isolated by the international community, the more the elements in the north of Cyprus who oppose a just Cyprus settlement will flourish and the larger the spectre of permanent partition will loom. The international community and the EU in particular need to see the current opportunities.
	Many noble Lords raised the property issues, including the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis, Lord Faulkner and Lord Dykes. The British Government maintain a dialogue with the Turkish Cypriots on all Cyprus settlement issues, including property, but we are not able to prevent property development. It is a matter of great regret that the island did not reunite on the basis of the UN Secretary-General's proposals last year, with its system of property restitution and compensation. Naturally, however, we do not encourage British citizens to buy property in northern Cyprus and through our travel advice website and response to queries we explain the unique circumstances in Cyprus.
	Regarding direct flights to northern Cyprus, as reflected in the Foreign Secretary's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee, we continue to support in principle the commencement of direct flights to Northern Cyprus. We continue to believe that direct flights between the UK and the north would contribute significantly to the prospects for reunification through reducing economic disparities between the north and the south. This is an immensely complex legal area. As yet, no decision has been reached on the basis of legal considerations. The UK Government have no intention of pursuing a policy that is in contravention of international law.
	I suggest that the issue of Transport for London is not one for us to answer on its behalf. However, the Government are committed to supporting measures to end Turkish Cypriot isolation and that position remains unchanged.
	In response to the questions from my noble friend Lord Faulkner about extradition, it is not appropriate for me to comment on any ongoing judicial matters. As he will know, extradition is complicated by the non-recognition of the north.
	There is a deep sense of frustration that the EU has not been able to agree the aid and trade regulations. We still hope agreement on both can be reached. Aid and trade for Turkish Cypriots are both fundamental to fulfilling the mandate from foreign ministers last year. The UK does not oppose separate adoption of the regulations. Indeed, we hope that, later this month, there will be agreement on the aid regulation. But, in doing so, we must make it clear that we are committed to finding a way for the Turkish Cypriots to be able to trade with the rest of the EU.
	While financial assistance is welcome and necessary to bring standards of living and of governance up towards EU levels, it is unlikely, on its own, to provide a sustainable basis for economic growth. On its own, it risks entrenching the "dependency culture". We have to achieve, through trade, a narrowing of the gap between the north and the south, and trade is the cornerstone of the common market, of which Cyprus is now a member.
	What is the UK doing? Our first priority is to persuade the Government of Cyprus of the strength of these arguments, and to bring Greek Cypriots with us, to enable the EU to carry out the full programme of aid and trade which it set itself last year. We are well aware of the strength of feeling among Greek Cypriots against direct trade; some even see it as a threat to the very existence of the republic and as a commensurate boost to the status of the authorities in the north. We are also aware that the government of Cyprus hope to use trade across the green line, via the existing EU instrument, to provide an economic outlet for their Turkish Cypriot compatriots.
	So this is not a disagreement about ends, but about means. We, like the Commission, strongly believe that direct trade is not about partition. Rather, it is one of the most positive contributions the EU could make, as we seek to back up the UN's search for peace in Cyprus. We will continue, bilaterally and with our EU partners, to tackle these arguments in a frank and open manner, for our part, rejecting attempts by either side in Cyprus to reduce this issue to a zero sum game.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, why has no one mentioned the Council of Europe, which has had considerable involvement in the Cyprus issue, in negotiating, helping and allowing Turkish Cypriots an opportunity to express their views in an international body?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The Council of Europe has not been raised by noble Lords, so I am not responding to that point. However, I recognise the fundamental role that the Council of Europe has played and will continue to play. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that the search for a settlement in Cyprus should remain a top priority for British foreign policy. I can assure noble Lords that it will.
	The UK Government remain firmly committed to achieving a bi-zonal, bi-communal, federal solution to the Cyprus problem. We welcome the recent fact-finding mission to the region by Sir Kieran Prendergast, the UN Under-Secretary-General for political affairs. However, sadly, his report to the Security Council concluded that the gap between the stated positions of the parties appears to be widening and confidence between them is not high. The fact that he undertook such a fact-finding mission is in itself a small step forward.
	Today's debate has reminded us all that in the mean time, while we wait for an acceptable solution, one practical thing that the UK and the EU can, and must, do is to help the Turkish Cypriots put this waiting period to good use, by allowing them to match the progress of their civil society with equally clear progress on the economic side. They have turned their backs on the politics of partition. We need to help them to resist the politics of despair.

Business

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may assist noble Lords speaking in the following debate before the clock starts to run. Only two minutes are unallocated in the time available. If all noble Lords from the Back Benches on the speakers' list speak for six minutes, the Minister would have two minutes in which to reply. It is a very tightly timed debate. I felt that it was important to draw that to your Lordships' attention.

Parenting

Baroness Massey of Darwen: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what strategies they are developing to encourage effective parenting.
	My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate and that it has attracted so much interest. Apart from the distinguished cast today, many other noble Lords have indicated how important they think the issue of effective parenting is. I look forward to the Minister's response setting out government strategies.
	I am honoured that the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, has chosen to make her maiden speech in the debate. I have long admired her, both personally and professionally.
	I sought the debate because I am passionate about examining what influences children and young people in order that they might achieve their potential—socially, intellectually, psychologically and academically. Parenting is, of course, key to that.
	I should declare an interest as the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, a board member of the Trust for Study of Adolescence, a school governor in an inner city primary school and also as a parent and grandparent. I am grateful to a number of organisations for their ideas and expertise which they have shared with me, especially the National Family and Parenting Institute, Parentline Plus, the Parenting Education and Support Forum, NSPCC and Barnardo's; and Sure Start has, as always, provided me with valuable insights into parenting strategies.
	Parenting is of course the primary influence on a child's development. The vast majority of parents want the best for their children; sadly, that best does not always materialise. We need to look at the reasons why. We know which parenting strategies are helpful to children, so the question is: how do we as a society encourage parenting skills? I shall first set out some concerns, briefly look at what research and help lines tell us about parenting and then I will explore some possible ways forward. I shall end by asking the Minister, who I know is also passionate about children's achievement, if he will hold a meeting with interested parties to discuss the issue further.
	There are different types of parenting—and other noble Lords will discuss that—young parents, older parents, lone parents, adoptive parents, step parents, dysfunctional parents, parents of different cultures, people who parent children in care and some grandparents who parent. And there are different kinds of children—different abilities, different temperaments, those with special needs and so on.
	There are common factors which make for effective parenting and factors which deprive a child of emotional support, skills and nurturing. For nurturing is what parenting is all about. It transcends material well-being; it puts the child at the centre of care; it sets boundaries and behaviour about what is right and wrong; and it encourages the achievement of potential.
	When parenting goes wrong the child is severely disadvantaged. Parenting is a difficult job, for which we give little training. It does not always come naturally, but parents can be helped. Would we put a teacher into a classroom with no training? Would we put someone who drives a bus or operates machinery into a job with no training? The people who do such jobs need not simply information but also skills and to practise of skills before they are let loose into a classroom or on the road. We would not dream of simply giving somebody a leaflet about how to drive a car. How much more important is parenting? And many parents after the initial childcare messages are left to it.
	It is fantastic to see this Government's concern for families and their related policies. We have the working tax credit, the 10-year strategy for childcare, Home-Start, Sure Start and the implications of the Children and Adoption Bill, building on Every Child Matters. It will be interesting to monitor the impact of those initiatives. Meanwhile, there are deep concerns about child and adolescent behaviour, highlighted in the media. Not all those concerns will be solved by ASBOs or by putting young people into the criminal justice system, where sometimes they learn even worse behaviour. Some are lucky enough to get involved in parenting programmes in that system. Recently, I saw a moving video about a young father in prison learning to read to a small child and increase his communication skills. The families of prisoners need particular help if they are to recover. But why wait until someone is in difficulty? Difficulties start early and tend to repeat themselves.
	In the primary school where I have been a governor for many years we see children entering school at four or five who have never seen a book, let alone turn the pages, who are already aggressive towards other children and adults, and who have almost no social skills. That must be down to inadequate parenting. We need to be as blunt as that but also offer ways out of damage done to children. Fortunately, my school does a good job with children and parents. But some of those children will be the illiterates and the violent of the future. What is to be done? Measures such as Sure Start will not yet touch some parents. One research finding indicates that some parents do not know how to seek help and are isolated. They have no community of family or friends. Tackling poverty is important but it is not the only answer.
	A recent research report by Desforges on family education of pupil achievement states:
	"The most important finding . . . is that parental involvement in the form of 'at-home good parenting' has a significant positive effect on children's achievement . . . even after all other factors shaping attainment have been taken out of the equation".
	That is powerful stuff. Goldman's work on emotional intelligence points to the significance of learning from an early age how to communicate and the importance of becoming well adjusted. That in turn has an impact on academic achievement throughout life. Other research indicates that good communication from parents relays, often indirectly, values and morals, including sexual behaviour and other health issues. David Quinton stresses the importance of support and inter-agency working. There is vast evidence for the importance of parenting schools.
	Parents call helplines in crisis, and it is wonderful that they are there. They call about isolation; child development; health, including drugs and sex; adolescent problems and crime. They often need help from specialist agencies. So what can we do? Parenting education programmes must be free, and parents should be encouraged to attend them. They need to tackle issues of child development and how to access, use and give support. Other materials such as videos and magazines are useful but not everyone uses them.
	We could do more before people become parents, and might prevent people getting into difficulty in the first place. Personal, social and health education in schools has been shown to increase pupils' ability to communicate, improve relationships and gain self-esteem. I think that it should be the centre of the school curriculum. Without those attributes, some children will not learn, as is clearly shown by the school where I am a governor, where some children do well academically because their social needs are emphasised. Confident people with good self-esteem make for children with the same qualities.
	We have a subject in schools called citizenship. What better could we do for citizens than help them to become better parents? Learning about child development before a parenthood crisis begins is surely important. I have seen, in my experience as a teacher, schemes that help adolescents look at what it means to be a parent and how to communicate. Every adolescent boy or girl should have something like that built into their education. Can we talk about this more with organisations concerned about families and parenting? We need to consider what works, as well as what goes wrong. There is a leadership group on school behaviour and discipline, but I am asking for something more that fundamentally examines and makes recommendations about parenting—the hardest, the most rewarding job of all.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I chose this debate for my maiden speech because I have much experience of parenting. That does not mean that I have much expertise—I would not claim that, despite the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. Leo Tolstoy began Anna Karenina with a line that, I am sure, all of you know well:
	"All happy families are alike but an unhappy family is unhappy after its own fashion".
	So are the children. Let us consider some of the factors common to happy families and good parenting. I cannot cover them all, but let us look at some of them.
	The most important factor for me is two people living and loving together and showing solidarity in front of their children. Marriage is what I am talking about—it is a great institution. Perhaps it is no longer "until death us do part", but certainly marriage should be until any children we have are emotionally and financially independent. By that time, you have lost the urge to stray, if not the will to live.
	Divorce has become far too easy in this country for couples with children. It is a disgrace that our divorce rates are some of the highest in the world. It is a major factor in bad parenting and the break-up of our society. Why then are the Government so intent on rejecting policies that favour two parents in a family? Is it an attempt to be politically correct?
	I fully accept that some parents may do a good job after marriage breakdowns, but their children might not agree. Likewise, people who choose single parenthood for personal or career reasons may be good parents, but their children will grow up deprived of a balanced family.
	It is interesting too that, although sociological evidence in Britain and all over America shows children of married couples faring much better than other children, we in Britain still refuse to encourage marriage as the norm and speak up for it. What nonsense. It goes against all the laws of the animal kingdom. I am a biologist, and I say that it goes against our biology.
	Happy families and good parents enjoy support from extended family, grandparents and community. I saw that swing into action in Hampton Hill, when my daughter died suddenly last year. It is terribly important. Family and community corralled her family. We were very lucky. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence to mention my daughter's mother-in-law; I am sorry about that. I have always described her as the mother-in-law from heaven. She dropped everything to support her son and her two little grandsons—our two little grandsons. Sarah Wherry, I salute you.
	The Government cannot provide extended families—I am not asking them to—although they could do much more to encourage grandparents in the childcare system. The Government are destroying the extended family provided by communities with their emphasis on choice of schools, particularly primary schools. It erodes the community around the school and the support that neighbours and parents of children in the local school give to one another—as well as causing a lot of traffic congestion, incidentally, with the school runs.
	I was utterly dependent on that community care in Kew when I was bringing up my family and juggling medicine and work and children. I see it disappearing completely, as parents drive their children all over the area to get their first choice of school. The new Kelly hours are a splendid development, but they will work only if the children are local and not left stranded in a school miles away from neighbours and friends.
	The Government have made huge strides in childcare: I admit that and congratulate them on providing Sure Start and more nursery places. But we are still light years away from countries such as France which for decades has provided cheap, accessible childcare not only as essential for working mothers but also as a palliative for poor parenting. France does not seem to have the disorderly society that we have here in Britain.
	In conclusion, I must mention the appalling behaviour of young people on our streets and in our schools. I am pessimistic about our prospects of taming this generation. We did not get to them early enough. If in future we can support couples bringing their children up together, bolstering family life in the early years with better housing and childcare, we may be able to make the next generation more civilised.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it is a particular privilege to follow that very caring and, if I may say so, passionate maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. She brings to this debate and your Lordships' House not only her eight years' experience representing Richmond and Barnes in the other place but important roles in that place on the Front Bench, especially as the Liberal Democrat spokesman for children. As she mentioned, she brings also her professional role as a doctor specialising in family planning. So we welcome her warmly to your Lordships' House. She will clearly have much to contribute and we look forward to hearing her views on many occasions.
	I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for giving us this opportunity to debate a very important subject. Successful parenting is the key to a successful and, above all, stable society—indeed, a stable and successful country. All the more so as our UK birth rate is declining, parents need to be supported and valued for every aspect of their important role.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, pointed out, most of us are not born with the skills necessary to ensure that we play that role satisfactorily. Thankfully, most of us have supportive family and friends—and, yes indeed, grandparents—who help us to do a relatively adequate job. Too many others are not so lucky.
	For children from deprived or dysfunctional backgrounds, the kind of support we are discussing today is essential. For them, that has two extra distinct appeals. First, it will help to ensure that they can fully develop their abilities and personalities—for the nation's economic benefit as well as their own. Secondly, and almost more importantly, it will hugely reduce the probability that such children will end up in prison, with unfulfilled lives and at enormous economic cost to taxpayers. During the 20 years that I spent as a juvenile court chairman, I saw many occasions when the right support at a critical stage in a child's development reduced the probability of their later entry to prison.
	That is why, as others have said, government programmes such as Sure Start are important and why we must insist that they continue to be properly resourced now that they have been subsumed within Children's Trust. That is also why my noble friend Lord Northbourne, with my enthusiastic backing, has previously urged in this House that parenting should be prominent in citizenship courses. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, emphasised that.
	I fear that we remain concerned that far too little attention is given in these courses to family relationships. I do not just mean helping young people to communicate better with their parents, important though that is, but raising in young people—boys as well as girls—an early awareness of the responsibilities, and the joys, that parenthood involves.
	Of equal importance is the need to take a hard look at the changes that have taken place during your Lordships' lifetimes and, in particular, their likely impact on that all important issue of family stability. I shall concentrate my questions to the Minister on the impact of just two of those changes and how the Government plan to respond to them. The first is the considerable change in the structure of families and the second is the impact of the now almost accepted equal opportunity employment environment on the pattern of family life.
	Clearly, for the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for most of us and, certainly, for me, marriage is the most favoured family-rearing partnership for men and women. But living together and raising children without what used to be called "benefit of clergy" is becoming increasingly popular. And—whether of marriages or of those less formal partnerships—the percentage of family break-up is increasing alarmingly, especially—and worse still—when children are young. One figure that I came across is that today 25 per cent of our 12 million UK children have experienced either the separation of their parents or have parents who have never lived together.
	We all talk about the best interests of the child being paramount. Yet, in practice we almost ignore the damage that parental break-up can do to a child's development, particularly, as we all know, to his or her subsequent ability to form trusting relationships. So it would be helpful to know if research is confirming the significance of this upward trend in family break-ups and, if so, what the Government plan to do, not least in terms of damage limitation if the numbers continue to increase.
	I now turn to my second, and final, point; the consequence of our emerging equal opportunities culture, of which, as your Lordships will appreciate, I am a firm supporter. In the 30 years since the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts were passed, much, if not all, of what we could have hoped for—and certainly not all as far as equal pay is concerned—has been achieved.
	It is the structural changes which result from those developments—later marriages, and later and fewer children—that need our attention. I would be the first to acknowledge that in this field this Government have already achieved a great deal. The latest commitment of an extra £680 million to encourage an increase in the number of "extended day" schools will be of considerable help. However, strains on families, particularly those with young children, remain. It is still very much expected by employers that it is the mothers rather than the fathers who will wish to take post-natal time out of employment or to work flexibly or part-time.
	One excellent by-product of the past 30 years has been the growing wish, particularly among the younger generation of fathers, to be equally involved with, and responsible for, their children's upbringing. EOC research shows that something like 79 per cent of new fathers are happy to stay at home and look after their children.
	What is urgently needed now is all work/life balance options to be available to both parents on equal terms. If we can achieve that, not only—

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, can I just remind the noble Baroness that this is a time-limited debate and that she is now two minutes over.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am just coming to my conclusion. If we can achieve that, not only may we see mothers having babies at a younger age, which is probably a healthier option in itself, but we may also see the birth-rate begin to climb once again, with the obvious advantages—perhaps I may selfishly say to noble Lords—that that will surely mean for those of us of pensionable age.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations on the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and pay tribute to her. I am delighted that your Lordships' House will benefit not only from her wisdom and commitment but also, as we have already heard, from her passion. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Massey on initiating this extremely important debate.
	In thinking about how to frame my contribution to the discussion, the scientist in me needed to start with a definition of what effective parenting might represent. From my perspective as neither a sociologist nor an educationalist, it seems that effective parenting might be an approach to nurturing or bringing up children that helps them to grasp opportunities and to reach their full potential while minimising the effects of the negative environmental factors around them and the adverse events in their lives. No doubt there will be more academic definitions, but that is how it seems to me.
	We all know that some have a great many more opportunities than others and that some experience a great many more adverse effects. Of course it goes without saying that some experience environmental factors such as poverty far more than others. Therefore, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, I believe that it is possible to be a great parent in the worst of all situations. We know of people among our family and friends who have achieved that.
	With that in mind, I draw attention to the needs of lone parents. Almost by definition, parenting for lone parents is more challenging, not because to be a lone parent is to be a bad one, but because there is so much more to overcome. In many cases this can mean the stress and isolation of coping on your own. But most important are the quite significant economic hurdles that lone parents face.
	There are many myths around lone parenting which need to be dispelled. On reading the tabloids, for example, we could be forgiven for thinking that single mums spend their time living on benefits and leaving their kids unattended to skip off to Benidorm at every opportunity. I adore "Little Britain", but while Vicky Pollard is a great comic study, she is far from the norm.
	As we have heard, the number of lone parent families in this country is increasing, but at present the median age for a lone parent is 35, and only 3 per cent of lone parents are teenagers. There are now 1.8 million one-parent families in Britain caring for nearly 3 million children. Lone parents now make up a quarter of all families. So my point is that the Government cannot take adequate steps to support effective parenting in a comprehensive way unless the needs of lone parents are addressed. That means addressing the hardship and stigma they experience.
	Unlike earlier speakers, I am not pessimistic. I believe that things are improving, particularly with regard to childcare. I remember that back in the 1980s when I was involved in campaigning for childcare for working parents, the debate focused on whether women should be allowed to work at all and whether childcare—nurseries in particular—were the root of all evil. The debate has moved on and the challenge today is much more about how to make good quality, affordable childcare more accessible so as to help parents balance their work and home responsibilities. I welcome the extension of the Government's childcare strategy which, combined with more action on low pay and family support, has the potential to improve parenting opportunities for many lone parents. I cite in particular the Sure Start programme as a really great development. I look forward to seeing a Sure Start programme in every community in the country.
	I agree that parenting skills can be learned and that they are essential. There is a huge potential, but the evidence suggests that lone parents find it particularly difficult to access these training opportunities. For lone parents, childcare and the economic issues to which I have already alluded need to be tackled. While Vicky Pollard might have dropped out of school at an early age, most lone parents strive to get into work.
	Today, 55 per cent of lone parents are in work, up from 44 per cent in 1997. But, sadly, work does not automatically represent a route out of poverty for all. One parent families are still at the greatest risk of poverty than any other family type. Some 42 per cent of "poor" children live in one-parent families and 33 per cent of lone parent families live on less than £200 week. Can you imagine that?
	Maintenance payments can make a real difference, but only 31 per cent of lone parents receive child maintenance from the other partner and we are all aware of the problems in the Child Support Agency. We need to address the problems faced by lone parents, which we can see reflected in the reality of the lives they live.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I certainly add my congratulations to my noble friend on her stirring maiden speech. As a Whip, I look forward to arranging for her to intervene in many of our future debates.
	I am intrigued by the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, because I wonder how much influence any government can have directly on parenting as opposed to supporting parents with facilities such as peace, economic activity, stable environment, health, education and social work.
	In the real world—if I can still remember it—I spent 20 years in the social services and in criminal justice, as well as four years with the building industry and, at the same time, eight years with the reserve forces.
	Social work training—at least in the late 1960s—went to great lengths to stress the uniqueness of the individual. Social work was based on the need for the external nurturing of some individuals in the pursuit of that uniqueness—or, to put it another way, to assist each person to find their own niche and to do so on a non-judgmental basis. Obviously there are limits and some have to compromise on their perceived niche if it is unlawful or grossly anti-social.
	I am sure that my college tutors would be proud of my historical recall because social work today is now about assisting people into conformity. However, it is not my intention to use my brief intervention in this debate to drool over my idealistic adolescence; what I am most interested in today—and in the longer period—is what the Government can do for step-families. I should therefore declare an interest—which is far from pecuniary—in that I have been a step-parent of five for the past 31 years.
	My step-family are now aged from 43 to 35, if I have calculated correctly their ages, and there are now eight grandchildren. However, I married into a family aged between 13 and four and enjoyed—mostly—being a parent for the remainder of their childhood and onwards. I have observed that it does not end.
	So what is the point of this outbreak of happy families? I am concerned about the uncertain recognition that is granted to step-children. First, this is no plea for the hereditary peerage—after all, it cannot even recognise daughters. Secondly, the life peerage recognises sons and daughters equally. I think it includes adopted children but definitely excludes step-children. Thirdly, out in the real world, natural and adopted children have superior rights over step-children.
	I propose that step-children should be granted equal status to adopted children after a substantial period of time, which should include the remainder of their childhood. Those who recall the old apprenticeship system will recognise the process of qualification by servitude. I am proposing something similar. So why not adopt step-children? That may be opposed by their absent parent. In any case, the process has to be completed by 18, an age which is not really the conclusion of childhood.
	I believe that there should be an instrument of affiliation, an irrevocable status entered into bilaterally and voluntarily between what amounts to two adults who have been in a step-family relationship for a period of, say, 20 years or more. Such an instrument of affiliation would grant equivalent rights to that of childhood adoption. It would not help those who are in a fly-by-night step-family relationship but would recognise the reality of a stable relationship and an ongoing reality.
	I hope that the Minister might follow up this idea for strengthening an increasing number of families.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, when working on the lines at Childline, I was always struck by the way children would defend and care about the most destructive and difficult parents imaginable. Faced with fathers or mothers who were alcoholic, drug users, abusive, violent or emotionally destructive, their primary concern was most frequently to hold their family together and to seek ways of making things better.
	Of course, there were also the children who wanted to escape the pain. I remember the two little girls in a telephone box, one saying, "It was all right while it was me, but now he's starting on my sister. Will you come and get us?" In another case, a conviction for sustained sexual abuse was not achieved but at least the children were finally safe.
	I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for giving us the opportunity to take part in this debate and for all the excellent work she does for children and families. However, I should like to concentrate on the needs of parents at the extreme end of adverse circumstances and the support they require to bring up children who care for them and need them, despite all. These are the families who find their children out of control as they reach their teens due to poor parenting; they are unlikely to do well at school. Many have relationships that will not survive this behaviour. They will be a part of the 10 per cent of separating families whom we talked about when we discussed the new Children and Adoption Bill.
	These families have neither the practical nor the emotional resources to resolve their problems. Most of them do not start by being single parents. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on drawing our attention to the fact that most people find themselves in this position because someone has walked out on them.
	When I was a family caseworker in the Family Welfare Association and then in Lambeth children's department, these were the families we sought to help and change. That experience taught me that we could make a difference, even in the face of dreadful odds. But over the years, the kind of preventive work envisaged by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 has disappeared, to be replaced by child protection and emergency intervention, with little room for conciliation and care.
	There are new approaches and programmes being tried. For example, district judge Nicholas Crichton, resident judge at the Inner London Family Proceedings Court, concerned at the procession of mothers addicted to drugs whose babies were taken into care only to become pregnant again and the whole process to be repeated, has set up a project to intervene and help them. Camden, Islington and Westminster, together with CAFCASS, have each contributed £10,000 to support it. And because this judge understands that these cases are never just about drugs or alcohol, the programme builds on measures to deal with relationship problems, domestic abuse, housing, mental health, income support and learning difficulties, and all the things you require to be a good parent. I hope that this programme is watched closely by government and that, if it succeeds, it is replicated in other parts of the country with more central support.
	Many parents will have problems that present themselves in less florid ways than drug or alcohol abuse, but they will affect their parenting skills. They would gain from parenting classes, children's centres and social work intervention. In 2004, a series of studies produced by the DfES and the Department of Health as part of their Supporting Parents series, demonstrated how much these parents, in adverse circumstances, valued these experiences. Even parents without problems appreciate a little help; how much more would those who are struggling?
	I shall spend a few moments talking about sexual abusers and reminding your Lordships that they are not on the whole lone monsters, but family men. As a trustee of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which treats sexually abusing men, I see both the damage they can do and the distress this can bring to families. The one place where these men could be treated in the community, the Wolvercote Clinic, has now been closed for four years, and the pioneering work of the foundation suspended. I am grateful to the Government for sticking with us in the search for another centre, but this issue needs more urgency. I have met these men and I have talked about their children. We should remember that they will return to being family members with all the dangers that that brings if they are not treated.
	Where can these parents turn in a society where to abuse a child sexually is the last taboo, where to come forward means imprisonment and life-labelling and little hope of treatment? The foundation, through its Stop It Now! programme, runs a helpline for those wishing to seek help, be they potential or actual abusers. We have been surprised by the number of men who are prepared to come forward.
	All of that is truly the difficult end of parental support—one that many would like to deny exists, but one where intervention must be highly skilled and committed. It is draining and soul-destroying work, but we continue to undervalue those who undertake it. In our society, that is simply not good enough. I hope that as the workforce strategy and the many other government programmes are put into place, we will at last tackle some of these problems, support our workers and give parents in the most serious emotional and practical difficulties the service that they deserve, if only for the sake of the children.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Massey on introducing this useful and timely debate. My congratulations are due also to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on her vigorous and heartfelt maiden speech.
	I declare an interest by mentioning a scheme which is a brainchild of a group of publishers. Entitled Quick Read, it aims to produce short books for adults who have just learned to read but who do not know where to begin. I am one of the writers who have been commissioned to write one of these 20,000-word books of mono- and disyllabic words, short sentences and short paragraphs.
	This may seem a long way from parenting, but I suggest that it is crucial to it. If these brave and hopeful people had been read to as children and accustomed early to the printed word, I wonder if they would now be in a situation which is most usually experienced at the age of five.
	Searching the Internet, I found no fewer than 19 websites on parenting. I may have missed something, but the only reference that I could find to reading was on a site devoted to making speech and language-learning a priority in a child's life. The reference was merely a sentence suggesting that books could be used for pointing out the names of objects. Another site suggested,
	"creative ways to teach your child to tie his shoelaces".
	Another advertised the TV Timer, a device which allows you to set a maximum of three viewing periods a day, thus giving you control over your child's television watching. I found nothing about reading.
	People read less than they used. It is particularly true to say that children read less. Television, DVDs, videos and computers have taken the place of books in their lives. This is an easily understandable change when we consider the instant appeal of action, the spoken word, music and singing, all of which are served up with very little effort on the part of the viewer. It takes a remarkable strength of mind on the child's part to resist the allure of the media in favour of the printed word unless—and this is a very important "unless"—they have been accustomed to the look, feel and contents of a book from early childhood.
	At the present time, as my noble friend Lady Massey pointed out, there are more children than most literate adults would believe possible who have never seen a book, would fail to recognise a book and would have no idea what it is for. In a literacy project in which a friend of mine was involved, she was asked by a child of five if the book he was shown contained something edible. Its outside he took for packaging.
	It seems that parents no longer read to their children; how tempting, when they are tired or overworked, is the television—what an edge it has over the book—even supposing that they possess books. Yet reading to a child, particularly to a child settling down to sleep at night, is a fine and valuable tradition, which confers more benefits than are at first apparent. A child who is read to will wish to read herself. A child in whose home is a bookcase of books will grow up habituated to the presence of books and take them for granted as part of the furniture, as he takes the TV set and the phone for granted.
	I am not of course saying that the child who reads will never truant from school, experiment with drugs, join a gang or become a teenage parent, but I am suggesting it is less likely that these misfortunes will befall them. This, I believe, is because while film, television, videos and computer games entertain but offer no stimulus to the imagination, reading opens up to children whole new worlds. Excitement and adventure is not fed into them; they have to go in there and extract it for themselves.
	And books are not expensive—not when you think how long even a paperback lasts and how it may be passed from parent to parent and child to child. Also, not to be passed over, there is the public library, which is still primarily—no matter what excellent access to the Internet it offers, what refreshments and diversions—a repository of books.
	Government can do much here to encourage parental reading and the use of books. Reading to one's children and offering them the means to read, reading oneself to set an example—these things alone will not make a good parent, but they will go a long way towards making a good and happy child. I do not mean to be frivolous, but since children so often seem to wish to do the things that their parents have banned, perhaps a website should offer for sale a reading timer. But I fear that things do not work out that way. It is time that parenting groups, which are becoming increasingly popular, included on their agenda something on the desirability of reading with your children. We should also remember that the older siblings who have been read to and now read for themselves will often be anxious to teach the younger ones to read early, perhaps in pre-school days.
	Immense value lies in sharing activities with one's children. Public participation in sport is excellent, of course; so is the concept of a whole family watching television or listening to music together. But perhaps there is something unique in the idea of mother or father sitting down to read to one child, or two or three. This is a sharing of minds and of response which must lead to a divergence of views, for each family member will interpret what they read aloud or hear in differing ways. And each one of them, in time to come, will look back and say, "Do you remember when you read Harry Potter to us, or that other Potter—Beatrix—or Roald Dahl?". One aspect of good parenting is sharing a good book with one's children and thus avoiding the sad situation, when they are older or much older, of needing the Quick Read with which I began this evening.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, in her powerful and eloquent maiden speech, referred to housing and parenting. We know that more than 100,000 families are now living homelessly, which is a very high number and a troubling situation. I have visited Newham and seen damp running down the walls of some of the private rented accommodation in that area. The poor quality of housing is a real problem for families.
	It struck me some time ago, sitting in on a parenting group, how invaluable it was for those parents to have a highly skilled facilitator and to sit together to talk about their children. One parent had two sets of twins under the age of five and spoke little English. Such parents had the opportunity to break through the isolation of their lives, which for some of them at least were impoverished because of these challenges. I welcome in particular the work of the Parenting Education & Support Forum, which organised the session, and especially Mary Crowley, whose devotion to this cause is very noteworthy. I hope that the Minister will ensure that in the academies that he is establishing there will be a space for these sorts of classes and will bear in mind how to encourage them as far as possible.
	I wish to talk about information for parents on the value to the child in the first year of life of a close and interested relationship with parents. Last week I attended a lecture on midwifery at King's College London introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. My neighbour provided ante-natal classes to parents. She was a professional woman in her fifties of vast experience and a former chief executive of a large maternity charity. I expressed my concern to her that parents were not being informed of the value of a good relationship between child and parents in the first year of life. She replied that it worried her to hear so many parents making early plans to rush back to work.
	I warmly welcome Her Majesty's Government's proposals to introduce an extension of paid parental leave. That is a tremendous step forward. However, we live in a society that puts great value on home ownership, the latest car and clothes. Unless clear information is provided to parents and prospective parents that their full attention and sustained interest in their child in the first year of life are of importance, they may make other commitments.
	A good attachment to the parents can be immensely rewarding for those parents. It also helps to ensure that the child learns how to manage his emotions in later life so that when he begins school he can contain his feelings of disappointment, elation, rejection or anger.
	Some parents who are professionals, for instance, lawyers, need to understand that childcare comprises more than just feeding and watering, and that a nanny, if employed, needs to be emotionally interested and invested in their child. Parents on low incomes need to be aware that passing a baby between several low-paid helpers is undesirable.
	I hope that in his response the Minister will say that Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of the secure attachment of a child to his parents in the first year of life, and that he will say how Her Majesty's Government are ensuring that all parents and prospective parents are aware of this, for instance, through PSHE. One welcomes the drive towards parental employment and consequent reduction in child poverty. That is very positive, but the approach needs to be nuanced and to recognise fully the developmental needs of children.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for initiating this debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for the informative and valuable lessons I have learnt from listening to her.
	My contribution will centre almost exclusively on Caribbean British children, who have been the subject of much research in the UK. Despite this the community ends up with more children in prison than in university, more being excluded from school than any other group, achievement levels still at the bottom and parenting being blamed for that unfortunate set of circumstances.
	"It takes a village to raise a child" is an African proverb with utmost relevance to the situation in the UK today. Many of our children grow up in an atmosphere far removed from the Janet and John idyll of mum, dad and the 2.2 children. For many British Caribbean children growing up today it is a family vastly different even from the one that I recall. Then mum and dad had a support network of granny and grandad, aunts and uncles—most totally unrelated by blood—who watched out for, administered to, disciplined, fed, taught and loved in equal measure. Today it is quaintly labelled "the extended family", but it is something with which I grew up knowing only as family.
	Just as the wider community watched out for and over the children in their midst, children also understood their role and responsibility in the wider scheme of things. To sit while some adults stood, fail to greet an elder, or confront a teacher, priest or policeman was unthinkable. Any rebellions were swiftly brought into line. We grew in the sure knowledge that with perseverance and application we could achieve anything.
	My grandmother always used to say, "A mother is a mother to the world". Somehow it seems that adults have lost the plot. Parenthood is not just giving birth but the teaching and training of a child, and it does not stop at our doors or with our own children. It is the job and duty of every adult to nurture and guide the next generation.
	The question that still puzzles me is of how this society sees children. Are they assets or a bother to society? Recently I was standing in a schoolroom with a head when the bell rang for break and the children poured out into the playground. In no time, the whole place was bubbling with life, with the children running around, playing games, yelling and chasing one another. As we looked on, the head said to me, "We have real problems here. You see that group over there? They are the school's worst nightmare"—"they" being a group of black boys.
	The pity of that remark was that, unfortunately, the head saw only the dark side of the situation playing out before her. After some time of silence I felt inspired to answer her. I said, "Those children should not be seen as problems but assets". To me, they were real assets—treasures; indeed, gifts that were given freely to us to take care of. Those children are our future. I suggested that one of them might be a future Albert Einstein, Bill Gates or Marie Curie—a potential genius waiting to be discovered and be helped to blossom as individuals if we were to nurture them. She looked at me as though I were insane.
	Is it not often the case that we see in children only problems and difficulties confronting society, yet there can be no greater truism than the fact that children are the future of every human society? Whatever their colour, they are in reality assets and investment opportunities waiting for the adult society to grasp their potential and turn it into real estate for the future of all humanity.
	I believe that every child, once he or she is conceived, is a potential asset—a treasure; indeed, we could say a gift of God to humanity. The Indian sage Tagore said so eloquently:
	"That with every child that is born the Creator is saying to humanity, I still have confidence in you".
	That is the confidence that we are still capable of bringing to blossom every potential of a child—still capable of bringing to fulfilment every promise that each child holds for humanity. Do we truly understand that responsibility to nurture and develop children in a way which produces tomorrow's citizen? I am sure that we all agree that those whom we expect to do so are those whom we label parents.
	What is our mental picture of parents—two adults, male and female joined in matrimony, whose role is to bring up children? Are we deluding ourselves? Is our world really like that? I suggest that the UK falls far short of that ideal. Look around you. There are different kinds of parents: birth parents; adoptive parents; single parents. The local authority is also a parent, and teachers are in loco parentis. Police officers used to be parents at one time, and youth workers are parents at some part of a child's life. I could go on, but I think that noble Lords have got the idea. I shall end here, although I felt that I was going on for another day. The clock has beaten me.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing this important subject. It is extremely disappointing that we have so little time, as I should have loved to comment on some of the brilliant and interesting speeches that have been made, not least the very touching speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells.
	There have been huge changes in the challenges that face parents over the past 75 years, and many of the problems facing our society today stem from the fact that we have failed to manage that change. In all fairness, I should say that this Government have introduced a lot of important initiatives, some of which have been outstandingly successful, and I congratulate them on that. I only have time to touch on two points that are important and which still need to be addressed. First, we would all agree that parenthood should always be an informed choice. Secondly, I should like to touch on the "dad deficit".
	On informed choice, effective contraception today makes it possible to make two separate decisions—first to have a sexual relationship, and secondly to make a lifestyle choice to be a parent. In a healthy society, every young person should have the chance to make an informed choice based on sound information about each of those two major life decisions. In schools today, we teach the mechanics of sex and contraception, and I am sad to say that in most schools that is about all. We are promised emotional and relationship education in schools. In most schools up to now, that has been totally inadequate, largely due to the lack of trained staff, lack of staff time and lack of curriculum time. But it is a hugely important subject.
	Parenting today cannot rely on instinct; parenting skills need to be taught and learnt. The trouble with teaching parenting to young people in schools is that most young people of school age are not yet really interested in the details of parenting. They are interested in how to form and sustain relationships, and that is what they should be taught in school, plus one other thing that I am just coming to. Experience suggests that it is probably better to teach parenting skills mainly in ante-natal and post-natal settings, at the time when they are particularly relevant.
	Nevertheless, young people of school age must be given enough knowledge in school to understand the implications of making the major lifestyle choices to become sexually active and to become a parent. They must learn about the costs, sacrifices and responsibilities of being a parent. In particular, boys must learn that they share those responsibilities; and girls must learn the implications of raising their child without a committed father. One of the things that is needed to put those messages across but which is lacking is a clear picture of what our society believes are the responsibilities of parenthood. In an interesting recent study by Clem Henricson and published by the NFPI, the point is made that the law and the different departments of state send different messages about what the responsibilities of parents are. There is undoubtedly a case for considering some sort of code for parents.
	I turn now to the "dad deficit". I draw attention to the imbalance today between the number of women who want to be committed mothers and the number of men who want to be committed fathers. The statistics suggest that it could even be as great as about 20 per cent. It contributes to the high level of children who grow up in single parent families—now some 27 per cent of families—and, undoubtedly to the increasing level of family breakdown.
	Will the Minister seriously consider funding research on the attitudes of men to making the long-term lifestyle choice to be a committed parent and on the reasons why they are not making that choice? If we had that information, there might be a pragmatic case for measures to make the choice of long-term committed fatherhood a less unattractive proposition, compared with other lifestyle choices for young men today.
	As a nation, we need more young men who want to settle down to a stable, committed family life which would give their children the stability, security and love that they will need if they are to thrive and achieve their full potential.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing this important little debate and congratulate my noble friend Lady Tonge on a forthright and challenging maiden speech.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said that parenting was a difficult job for which we as a society give little training. We on these Benches wholeheartedly agree. Yet, we all know that effective parenting is important. Poor parental supervision has been identified as one of the most important factors in juvenile crime and that the total cost of crime to this country is put by the Home Office at some £60 billion every year. We also know that home influences on the young play a significant part in domestic violence later on. Again, the Home Office reckons that that costs society more than some £5 billion a year. Childhood experience is closely linked with mental health and depression. Depression costs the country £9 billion a year.
	Those statistics demonstrate that it would be not only sensible but cost-effective if we could do something about better parenting. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, indicated that it would not be so difficult for us to do something about that. There are openings through Sure Start. Schools provide us with an obvious forum through which to reach parents, particularly at those vulnerable points of transition: when a child starts school at the age of five; when children move from infant to junior school at the age of seven; when they move from the junior school to the secondary school at the age of 11; and when they have to make their choices for GCSEs and other qualifications at the age of 14. All provide us with opportunities for bringing parents together.
	We also know that the earlier that we can nip the problems in the bud, the better it will be. For every child who displays by the age of 10 emotional and behavioural problems, the cost to society will be 10 times that of the other children in the class. Therefore, we should be doing something about it.
	What can we do? I draw to noble Lords' attention a recent publication from the National Family and Parenting Institute, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which describes a number of pilots that it has run, called parent information points. Essentially, the Institute tries to use the opportunities—the transition points—that I described, to get in and to provide parents not only with information but with the knowledge that they are not alone. That is important with any support group.
	All parents have trouble in one way or another bringing up their children and they should not be alone. The pilots involve a two-hour session with parents. So far, they take place when the children are aged five, when they start school, at 11 when they transfer to secondary and at 14 when they make their choices. So that they become easy with each other, the parents are given a short interactive session when they go around the room and talk about their problems. They will then present the parents with 10 top tips on handling children of that age group. They also have a market stall with all kinds of pamphlets and information. These have proved remarkably effective.
	The evaluation of the experiment indicated a substantial and significant increase in parents' self-reported knowledge of child development issues, an awareness of family support services, a readiness to use services and a confidence in themselves as parents. The greatest reported impact was among groups considered hard to reach, including parents on low incomes and Asian parents.
	Three-quarters of those attending said they had learnt something new about child behaviour. Seven per cent found the market stalls useful and 89 per cent said that they had learnt something new about services available to them with the more positive impact in the deprived areas.
	Clearly, the pilots are worth following through and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what proposals the Government have to do so. I hope that they will roll out the programme nationally not only for those aged five but for younger children at Sure Start age. We know that the earlier one can intervene the better.
	We have raised many questions during the debate and I look forward to hearing about the Government's proposals. The Question is relevant: to ask the Government,
	"what strategies they are developing to encourage effective parenting".
	Effective parenting can play a crucial part in the development of these young people and failures in parenting will reverberate through generation after generation.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, on securing the debate. It is a subject dear to her heart and it is timely considering the impassioned speeches we heard at Second Reading of the Children and Adoption Bill last Wednesday.
	Today's debate has been thought-provoking and well-informed, with specialist contributions from all sides of the House. The interdependent nature of the subject means that it is as wide-ranging as life itself. I would dearly love to mention every speech because they have all been marvellous, but I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I mention only two.
	We heard a passionate maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. It is good to hear someone speak out so robustly for the much-beleaguered institution of marriage. We heard also from the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. What I miss most now that my children have grown up is that magical moment of the bedtime story.
	My work in education, youth clubs and health and more recently my involvement with the Children and Adoption Bill has only emphasised what I feel so strongly as a mother and daughter. A cohesive family life and the vital role played by parents in providing love, stability and support for their children as they grow through their various stages to independence cannot be underestimated. It is priceless.
	We must never overlook the importance of the extended family. "Parent" refers not just to the biological mother or father of the child in question but to all those who take on a parental role, including step-parents, grandparents, godparents, adoptive parents and foster parents.
	Each year, between 150,000 and 200,000 parental couples separate. Some 27 per cent of the nation's 10.3 million children live in lone-parent households, the highest percentage found in all European countries, while last year's figures showed that 61,000 children were in local authority care. There are at least half a million stepfamilies caring for 2.5 million stepchildren and it is estimated that half of remarriages involving children will also end in divorce. Meanwhile, one in four step families breaks down in the first year.
	This breakdown of the traditional family unit has meant that parenting skills are not being handed down. Up to the birth of a child, maternity services offer much support. Then you go home with your bundle of joy, but no manual, no set of instructions, and those first nights can seem endless. Fragmented families further contribute to the sense of "not knowing what to do".
	The support we give in those early years is crucial. All the evidence points to the strain at that time contributing not only to relationship breakdown, but also to the increase in the numbers of children taken into care. The parents who most need help are the parents least likely to come forward to ask for help.
	Kent County Council is pump-priming services to support preventive work in this area, with excellent results. Good habits instilled at the beginning are so much easier to achieve than intervening later. One great source of wisdom, and a service which I valued, was my health visitor. Mrs Heyes was simply wonderful. If she did not know the answer there simply was not one. But the health visitor network is patchy and the work they do and the advice they give tails off too quickly. Their role should be strengthened with more concentrated support for weeks and months as part of an integrated package for parents to opt into.
	Any programmes for parenting support should be devised locally and provided by a variety of different groups in the private, public and voluntary sectors. I know that the Government already give money to voluntary organisations through the Parenting Fund, but we believe that that support should go to a wider group of organisations; for example, to groups like community family trusts, where amazing work is carried out, not just in supporting parents with advice and training, but also in helping to prevent relationship breakdown. Those and many other faith-based groups deserve all the help we can give them.
	Anyone turning on their television sets will undoubtedly come across a plethora of parenting shows such as "Little Angels", and "Super Nanny", in which experts hand down great wisdom to struggling parents. From toddler tantrums to truculent teenagers the basic message is the same: a lack of boundaries and a lack of respect. It is often the call of teachers that they spend so much time trying to address behaviour that they cannot carry out the job of teaching.
	One school which has tackled that problem successfully is Dorton House, a special needs school for the blind. It has a partnership arrangement whereby teachers and parents work together to ensure that there are boundaries and a routine in the children's day, ensuring continuity from school to home, based on principles of respect. I suggest that that is a model that would be a good blueprint for all our schools.
	It is almost impossible to do justice to this vital topic in such a short time. Along with the areas that I have covered, effective parenting touches on literacy, housing, the tax system, and almost anything. The one subject that should not be compartmentalised—or indeed departmentalised—is the family. We need bold initiatives and we need to trust parents. For the most part, parents really know what is best for their children and the Government should support them in the choices they make.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, my first pleasant duty is to join the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on her excellent and moving maiden speech. She brings a wealth of experience to our debates, not only from the House of Commons, but also from her extensive medical and health service background. We look forward to her future contributions.
	The House is indebted to my noble friend Lady Massey for raising this important issue of parenting. My noble friend, as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children, speaks with great authority on the issue. She asked me whether I would be willing to meet the All-Party Group and my answer is, of course, a firm "Yes". I look forward to discussing many of these issues further with members of the group.
	Attempting to address the theme of effective parenting and the wide range of excellent contributions to this debate in 12 minutes is about as daunting as Bill Bryson writing A Short History of Nearly Everything, about science and the natural world, in 423 pages. Such a task might well be within the capability of my noble friend Lady Rendell, not to mention Tolstoy, but it is well beyond my powers, I am afraid. So I hope the House will forgive me if I am selective and if I respond to many of the points that I am unable to deal with now in correspondence.
	Taking the specific question on the Order Paper, we believe a good proportion of parents do not require particular encouragement from the Government—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—to be good parents. The majority of parents are well encouraged to be effective parents from instinct, from conviction, not least, from the experience and the continuing contribution of their own parents, the ubiquitous grandparents, who have been referred to throughout the debate, and from their circle of friends and their local communities.
	While many parents may not need official encouragement, all parents need support. By "all", I readily include myself, since many noble Lords in the debate are parents and are only too well aware of our constant need for support, particularly if you are debating in your Lordships' House late into the evening. Parents need support in bringing up their children from birth—a point that was rightly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—right through to the teenage years, and, I am told, often beyond. I have not reached that stage yet. The Government have a key role to play in providing support.
	That support starts before birth. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked about the Parent Information Point Project of the National Family and Parenting Institute as one example of the kind of support that can be provided. I am told that we have identified £10 million for the next financial year and £10 million for the financial year after to roll out transition point support, working particularly through extended schools. We see that work as extremely important.
	The need for support increases dramatically at birth, with maternity and paternity leave. The Government are improving support sharply in that area. We have increased statutory maternity pay from £55 per week in 1997 to £106 in April this year. We have increased the duration of paid maternity leave from 18 weeks to 26 weeks, with a right to take further unpaid leave for a further 26 weeks; and we have a goal in our manifesto of increasing that maternity pay period to a full year by the end of this Parliament.
	We have given all employees with young children—fathers as well as mothers—the right to request flexible working. That was introduced two years ago, and as of April last year employers were granting eight in 10 flexible working requests. Many of the problems that were envisaged with that among employers did not materialise.
	We have also given parents the right to take time off work to deal with family emergencies. In respect of fathers—or the "dad deficit" as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, put it—we obviously cannot overcome that deficit by decree, least of all government decree, but we recognise the importance of taking steps to give further appreciation to the role of fathers and their capacity to fulfil their duties, which is why, for example, we have introduced two weeks' paid paternity leave for the first time ever, and it is also why we intend to legislate to enable mothers to transfer some or all of their maternity entitlement to fathers.
	All that combined is a positive response to the concern raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that a child's primary carer should be able to form a deep and lasting attachment with his child at the very beginning of that child's life, and that he should be able to decide his own future employment plans with some degree of comfort, in terms of income and job security.
	Equally important is what we are doing to help parents care for young children. We are boosting childcare and early education—creating a new under-fives service almost from scratch in this country in what is rightly, I believe, now seen as a new frontier for the welfare state.
	Given the contributions in the debate, I need hardly emphasise the importance of under-fives provision, both to help parents—not least the lone parents referred to with such passion by my noble friend Lady Morgan, so that they can work and support their children better—and also to improve the life chances of children.
	We are much struck by the research by Feinstein and others, which is so compelling, that differences in social background become pronounced in child development from as early as 22 months. There is the weight of experience from Scandinavian countries which have pioneered under-fives provision. There is also our early positive experience in this country, both of Sure Start, which has been mentioned in the debate, and also of the extension of childcare and free nursery places to both four and three year-olds where, as of this January, the take-up of free early education places even among parents of three year-olds was 98 per cent, when most of those places simply were not available even seven years ago.
	All of that together convinced my party to put the extension of under-fives provision at the heart of our manifesto for the last general election, and the re-elected Labour Government have now embarked on a 10-year strategy to establish children centres nationwide and to extend significantly parental support of all kinds, including childcare, nursery education and what in the jargon is now called "wrap-around care"—the extended nursery and school days. Parents have the choice of accepting the support; no one is being forced to undertake it. However, it enables working parents to combine work and family responsibilities so that they do not have to sacrifice the one for the other—as is still too often the case, to the detriment of both children and parents.
	I could give a great deal of detail about our proposed investment in under fives and what it will buy in partnership with parents themselves contributing, but I need to move on. Suffice it to say that we believe that our commitments match our vision in this area, and that this third-term Labour Government will be able to take a big step forward in creating a national under-fives infrastructure in this country to the lasting benefit of this and the next generation of parents and children.
	I shall move on to schools. There is no way in which society and government support parents more comprehensively than in the provision of education. We are committed to radical further improvements in education, meeting the diverse needs of parents and pupils with a more personalised service than was generally available in the past.
	To make that possible, we are investing substantially more in schools and teachers. The education budget is up by 50 per cent in real terms since 1997, which we see as a prime investment in the future. Within that, we are giving primacy to tackling disadvantage, and in particular, taking up the points made by my noble friend Lady Rendell, ensuring that every child learns to read properly as soon as possible after they start school. A child who cannot read cannot learn. Those who have most difficulty in learning to read are those who have least support from their parents. There is no single index of comparative disadvantage more compelling than the sharply differential level of educational attainment between different social groups by the age of 11, including in the basics of literacy and numeracy.
	We recognise that we must make much more progress in this area. The literacy strategy has already significantly improved the proportion of primary school children learning to read effectively since its launch in 1998, but too many children still fall behind from the earliest months at primary school. That is why one of the key terms of reference for the Rose inquiry into reading, which the Government established last month, is to advise us on the best form of catch-up literacy provision—including intensive support, where necessary—to help children who are not effective readers by the end of their first and second year at primary school to become so.
	Family learning has a key part to play here too. As my noble friend Lady Rendell rightly said—we applaud her own initiatives in this area—parents who are overcoming their own literacy problems are the better equipped to read to their children and to help their learning and behaviour in so many other ways. We have made a significant investment in family learning, within our wider provision to help the large number of adults without adult basic skills. The noble lord, Lord Moser, highlighted that issue in his chilling 1998 report putting a spotlight on the 7 million adults without functional literacy skills. We have substantially reduced that figure since then, through the adult basic skills strategy, and will continue to give the area a high priority.
	A good education is an education for life in its broadest sense, including education in citizenship, and personal, social and health education, preparing children better to become effective parents in their turn. My noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, rightly highlighted the role of PSHE in the school curriculum, and the Government entirely share my noble friend's view on its importance. This Government introduced a comprehensive framework for PSHE five years ago, including sex and relationship education (SRE), drugs education and education in safety and financial capability. My noble friend will be aware that Ofsted reported on PSHE earlier this year. We frankly acknowledge the mixed picture of provision found by Ofsted—that while almost nine out of 10 lessons taught by specialists are good or better in key stage 3 PSHE, the proportion falls to seven out of 10 in lessons taught by non-specialists, and the proportion falls to just over half in the case of lessons taught by non-specialists at key stage 4, which is in many ways the most important stage of all.
	We are working with schools and the PSHE community to improve that situation. We have commissioned the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to provide better assessment statements and exemplar PSHE material for PSHE co-ordinators and other teachers. This is the crucial point: we also want to see more specialist PSHE teachers, which is why we are providing more teacher professional development for teachers of PSHE through the new PSHE certificate, which we expect up to 4,000 teachers to have achieved by next year. We will look at further support thereafter.
	Let me also say a word about extended schools. In all the areas of education that I have mentioned—basic skills, parenting, family learning, childcare, more and better activities for children and teenagers—extended schools have a significant contribution to make. Alongside under-fives provision, we see that, too, as a critical agenda for this Parliament in supporting parents, so that by 2010 all schools should offer extended facilities to parents and pupils who wish to take them up, as so many do already where they are available.
	I have so many other points to mention. Parental separation—a fraught and difficult subject to which we will pay a lot of attention in the debates on the Children and Adoption Bill—was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge, Lady Howe of Idlicote and Lady Howarth of Breckland. I will deal with those points in correspondence, as I am up against the clock. Lone parents were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Drefelin. Afro-Caribbean parents were mentioned in a moving speech by my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, spoke about step-families.
	I cannot deal with those points now, but I will say in conclusion that all our research in the department shows that, for pupils of primary school age, parents have a greater impact on achievement than the quality of the schools that the children attend. For children at secondary level, parents also have a critical role to play with regard to staying-on rates, educational aspirations, career and life choices. None of that is remotely surprising. All of it is the foundation on which we are building our policies to help parents at large and the most vulnerable parents and children in particular. As a government, we are committed to extending the provision necessary to live up to our rhetoric. It is one of the main tasks that we set ourselves for this Parliament, and I believe that we have a credible response to the issues raised in this valuable debate.

House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eight o'clock.